Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

Mr. Charles Edwards, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Colonel Nicholson, Major Owen, Sir John Pennefather, Mr. D. D. Reid, Major Sir Granville Wheler, and Mr. Murrough Wilson nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Sir Harry Barnston.]

STANDING ORDERS (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Broad, Mr. Cadogan, Brigadier-General Charteris, General Sir Newton Moore, Mr. Neville, Mr. Paling, Mr. Somerville, Mr. George Thorne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White, and Mr. Robert Young nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—[Sir Harry Barnston.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FILM LEGISLATION.

Viscount SANDON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the case for a reel tax as an alternative to the quota, in connection with forthcoming film legislation?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand my Noble Friend to refer to a proposal to impose a special tax on the exhibition in this country of non-British films. As I informed the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on 2nd March last, this would be contrary to a number of
our commercial treaties, which are set out in my answer of that date, a copy of which I am sending to my Noble Friend.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has any agreement yet been reached with regard to imposing a tax on imported films?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I understand. Taxation, were it in contemplation, surely would not be a matter of agreement. This question asks whether a particular form of internal tax may be levied. That would be contrary to a number of treaties.

Colonel DAY: With reference to the quota, is there any other business which is compelled by law either to sell or to display certain goods?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter.

RUSSIAN PETROL AND KEROSENE.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the imports of Russian petrol last year and whether there was an increase over the imports for the year 1925; and what were the imports of Russian kerosene last year and what, if any, increase there was over those of 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer contains a table of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree that this should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:

Imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Russia:




1925.
1926.




Gallons.
Gallons.


Motor spirit (petrol)
…
33,111,263
55,217,069


Lamp oil (kerosene)
…
15,796,350
37,494,534

COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE.

Lieut.-Colonel STOTT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further volumes have been issued by Sir Arthur Balfour's Committee on Industry and Trade since the publication of their Survey of Industrial Relations last year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No publication has been issued by the Committee on Industry and Trade since their "Survey of Industrial Relations." A further volume entitled "Factors in Industrial and Commercial Efficiency" has now, however, been prepared by the Committee, and is expected to appear to-morrow.

COMPANY LAW.

Mr. HANNON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can indicate the approximate date of the introduction of the Bill dealing with the amendment and consolidation of company law?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope it may be possible to introduce a Bill in another place in the course of the next few weeks. The present Bill will be an amending Bill. Consolidation can more conveniently be undertaken in a subsequent Measure.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the various industries concerned who gave evidence before the drafting of the Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A certain number of people did ask to see me, but the hon. Member will remember that every conceivable interest gave evidence before the Committee.

Mr. HANNON: Will the Bill generally be on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, certainly.

FRENCH CUSTOMS TARIFF.

Mr. HANNON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement relating to the introduction of the new French Customs tariff; if he is aware that it is contemplated to increase nearly fourfold the number of specified duties now operative,, which will seriously affect the export of British goods to France; and if any representations have been made to the French Government on behalf of British industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Bill for revising the French tariff is expected shortly to be introduced in the Chamber of Deputies, and I have seen reports that the number of tariff items is to be
greatly increased. The question of making representations to the French Government cannot usefully be considered until detailed particulars of the proposals are available, and the views of British trade interests have been obtained.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring this fact to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that it can be linked up with our discussion of that question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is as well acquainted with it as I am.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had no question of this at all when we had the discussion in the House and the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. ROBINSON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the general concern among chambers of commerce, hankers, associations of employers and trade unions as to the condition of the textile industries, he will set up a Committee to inquire into the conditions of the industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Balfour is at present investigating the conditions and prospects of British industry and commerce, with special reference to the export trade, and I have no reason to think that an additional inquiry, confined to the textile industries, would serve any useful purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH TRADE AND RESIDENTS.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 2.
asked the President of the Beard of Trade whether he will state the value of the British trade with China: the amount of British capital now invested in China: and the number of British subjects now resident in China?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer contains a number of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I.

The value of the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with China and Hong Kong during the last three years has been as follows:


Imports consigned therefrom:
China.
Hong-Kong.



£
£


1924
…
…
13,915,282
765,341


1925
…
…
13,447,620
718,113


1926
…
…
11,554,135
667,562




Exports consigned thereto:




(a) United Kingdom Goods—




1924
…
…
20,346,613
8,554,434


1925
…
…
14,633,399
5,109,808


1926
…
…
16,426,858
3,181,586


(ii) Imported Goods—




1924
…
…
190,917
114,437


1925
…
…
175,424
92,853


1926
…
…
242,166
67,077

II.

I have no official information as to the amount of British capital invested in China, but from private estimates that have been made it would appear that it may amount to as much as £130,000,000, of which, perhaps, one-third is in the form of Chinese Government loans.

III.

According to statistics published by the Chinese Maritime Customs, the number of British nationals resident in China in 1925 was 15,247.

BRITISH TROOPS (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).

Commander FANSHAWE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken and proposes to take with regard to the Communist propaganda which was distributed among the troops under orders for China.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the distribution of leaflets to the troops prior to their embarking for China; and, with regard to the leaflet headed "War," published by the Communist Party of Great Britain and Young Communist League, 16, Xing Street, W.C.2, and printed by the Dorrit Press, Limited, 68 and 70, Lamb Street, S.E.1, will he state
what steps have been taken with the distributors of the leaflets, the publishers, and the printers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am aware that the leaflet headed "War!" and other leaflets have been distributed. I am advised that some of them contravene the law, but that others do not. The former bears no imprint and appears to have been distributed sparingly and with great caution. Inquiry is proceeding, but I do not yet know whether evidence will be available to support a prosecution.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the pamphlet entitled "War!" Is he also aware that an officer took away a whole bunch of them from one of the men distributing them, and threw them away?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes. I have said in my answer that I saw the pamphlet entitled "War!" I read it with very great care, and consulted the Law Officers as to what should be done; but I gravely doubt, as this country is not at war with China or any other country, whether it does contravene the law. If we were at. war, it would clearly contravene the law.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to continue his inquiries from the Law Officers, and make certain? Seeing that there is a Question clown for Thursday, will he consider the matter further, so that he may be able to give a reply?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be only too glad to answer, if I can, any Question put by my hon. and gallant Friend. In regard to the pamphlet entitled "War," which has an imprint, and whose printers we know, I gravely doubt whether it is at the present time actionable. With regard to the other pamphlets, which are much worse, there are no names on them, and I have not been able to get evidence to connect the distributor with the printer.

Mr. LOOKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time the distribution of pamphlets of this nature was made a penal offence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the answer to that is to be found in an old proverb: "You must first catch your hare before you cook it."

NEGOTIATIONS AT HANKOW.

Mr. SNOWDEN: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which private notice has been given, whether he has any information that the negotiations at Hankow have broken down, as has been stated in the Press?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Up to the present time, I have received no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (IMPORTED COTTON GOODS).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the rate of freight, per measurement ton, on cotton piece goods shipped to East African ports from British, Japanese, and United States ports, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the information he desires in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

I am informed that the rates of freight per measurement ton on cotton piece goods shipped to East African ports are as follow:


From British ports to all East African ports except Beira.



s.
d.


For native use only, value not greater than £100 per ton
57
6


If value greater than £100
70
0


Ordinary cotton piece goods
other than above
100
0

The above rates subject to 10 per cent, deferred rebate.

Beira.—All at 107s. 6d. per ton, less 10 per cent, rebate.

From Japanese ports.



s.
d.


Crepe, drill, flannel, sheeting, towelling
70
4


Other cotton goods 
80
5

From United States of America ports.



s.
d.


All cotton piece goods
94
8

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PENSIONERS (AGE INCREASE).

Mr. ROBINSON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the age increase of 4d. a day to pensioners aged 65 has been withdrawn in the case of men whose last enlistment was subsequent to 9th October, 1925; and what is the estimated saving that will result?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The full ultimate saving is estimated at £50,000 a year. As provision for pension at the age of 65 is now made in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, the withdrawal of this addition from Army funds will not inflict any hardship.

VICTORIA CROSS (EMOLUMENTS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether future recipients of the Victoria Cross holding commissioned rank will be eligible for an annuity not exceeding £75 per annum; and what emoluments may be received by officers and other ranks who are granted the Victoria Cross?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Full particulars of the emoluments granted to officers and other ranks who are in possession of the Victoria Cross are contained in Articles 651, 1046 and 1146 of the Pay Warrant. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of these Articles.

PERSONNEL.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of the War Office headquarters' staff and the total numbers serving in the Army in February, 1914, and the corresponding figures at the present time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The figures I furnished to the hon. Member last April for personnel were those included in Vote A and the Estimate for the War Office. Comparable figures will be available when the Estimates for 1927 are published.

QUARTERMASTERS' PENSIONS.

Major MALONE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider assessing the pension of officers of the quartermaster class on the rank
which they actually hold at the date of retirement, regardless of not having completed one year in that rank, in view of the age at which these officers are usually commissioned, and the consequent hardship in many cases entailed by the provisions of Article 609, Royal Warrant for Pay, 1926?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The regulation requiring an officer to serve for a complete year in any rank before becoming eligible for retired pay in that rank is common to all officers of the Army, and I regret that I cannot agree to an exception to it in the case of quartermasters.

KENNET AND AVON CANAL,

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Great Western Railway to close the Rennet and Avon Canal; whether he is aware that this waterway was of great strategic importance during the. recent Great War for the passage of craft of light draft; and whether he will take steps to safeguard national interests in this matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My attention has been drawn to the proposal, but I am advised that there is no sufficient reason, on strategic grounds, for opposing it.

MEAT CONTRACT

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the admitted importance of Empire trade, he can state why the recent contract for meat for the Army was placed outside the Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to the meat contract which has been awarded to an Argentine firm at a price below the cost of production, owing to the meat war in progress between the various South American meat firms, he will say what would have been the extra cost had the contract been given to an Empire firm, or if the meat had been supplied by British farmers?

Mr. EVERARD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, as the contract for 1,500,000 tins of corned beef for the Army
has been given to a firm whose factory is in the Argentine, he will say why the contract was not given to an Australian firm?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, before be placed a contract for South American corned beef, tenders received from Dominion firms were considered; and whether he gives a preference to British goods?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Two offers of Empire meat were received, but the prices quoted, which were respectively about 26 per cent. and 45 per cent. higher than those of the accepted tender, were unfortunately prohibitive, even after taking into consideration the preference normally given to Empire supplies.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the reason why this exceptionally low price was given the fact that there was a meat war between different Argentine firms that it represents below cost price, and with a view to Empire interest would not a small added cost have been a great help to Empire produce?

Mr. MACPHERSON: When does that contract fall to be reviewed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The contract has just been renewed for twelve months, so it will not be reviewed again for another eight or nine months. Of course I am very anxious to obtain Empire meat as against foreign meat, but there is a limit to the amount of the difference that can be paid in order to give an Empire preference, and neither the 26 nor the 45 per cent. enables us to place a contract so long as these prices prevail.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the Government's fair wages and fair conditions clause imposed in these contracts upon Argentine producers?

Sir L. WORTHINOTON-EVANS: I do not know.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not a clear violation of the instructions of this House if it is not?

Sir FREDRIC WISE.: Is the depreciated exchange taken into account?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think the depreciated exchange had anything to do with the price of this contract. It is a world price, and I do not think the depreciated exchange in the Argentine makes any difference.

Mr. EVERARD: Last year when the contract was given to our own Dominions was there any difference in the price between them and the Argentine?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes. Last year we placed a contract, with an American firm as a matter of fact for the sale of Australian meat and a preference was given. It was because of that preference that the contract went in the direction it did. It would otherwise have gone for meat that was tendered cheaper.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: What sum of money does that 26 per cent. represent?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think I had better give that, because on the whole it is fairer to tenderers not to give that sort of information.

Mr. KELLY: Is the War Department aware of the conditions operating and the wages of those employed by this firm?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I cannot say that I am.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is the firm in the Argentine that obtained the contract also an American firm?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; the contract has been placed with a British firm for the supply of Argentine meat.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War when the practice formerly observed of supplying the Home Army with British meat on certain days of the week was discontinued, and, if so, for what reason?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The practice was discontinued t the beginning of the War to facilitate collection, handling and storage, and on grounds of economy.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think
that, in the interests of the troops, they should be given periodical issues of home-killed meat?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not quite tie question. The question is whether certain days of the week should be devoted to a particular form of meat. That causes a great many difficulties which seem to me to be unnecessary.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why certain days in the week are fixed upon for the issue of British meat?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I cannot, without notice.

Mr. EVERARD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate extra cost to the annual Estimates of his Department if home-grown meat were used by the Army, instead of imported supplies?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The estimated annual extra cost of supplying home-grown instead of imported meat to the troops would be approximately £500,000.

RECRUITS (DISCHARGE FOR DISABILITY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of new recruits for His Majesty's Army were discharged on account of some physical or medical disability in 1926 within 12 months of their acceptance?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that the information is not available for the precise periods mentioned by the hon. Member, but the percentage of recruits discharged within three months of enlistment for medical reasons during the year ended 30th September, 1926, was 2.18.

ROYAL ARTILLERY ARTIFICERS (PRCMOTION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War what decisions have been reached and what changes will he made, as a result of the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the question of promotion of artificers in the Royal Artillery?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that the question is not yet settled.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to let me have an answer to this question, which I have put down regularly now for two years?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry there has been so much delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ERRIBOL ESTATE (SALE).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what price was received by the Board of Agriculture for the gimmer shotts belonging to the Erribol sheep stock; and what price was received for the same class of stock handed over at valuation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): Sixty-three gimmer shotts were sold at 43s. per head and 14 at 30s. A separate valuation of the gimmers handed over to the purchaser was not made by the arbiter in his award.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is there any precedent whatever for a valuation in which gimmers are slumped in with ewes?

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, I will do my best to answer.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether from any source other than the eventual purchaser any inquiries or tentative offers for Erribol were received by the Board of Agriculture after the last exposure of the estate at public auction; and why, seeing that one farmer at least was prepared to offer for Erribol with a Martinmas entry, the conditions of roup were not altered accordingly and the subjects re-exposed to public sale on this altered basis?

Major ELLIOT: Several inquiries were received by the Board after the last of the three exposures of the estate at public auction, but none of these disclosed a prospect that it would be more advantageous to re-expose the property at public auction than to accept the offer made by the eventual purchaser in the circumstances which my right hon.
Friend indicated in his reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th November.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If there were several inquiries besides this one, which was eventually accepted, surely it is unprecedented that the estate should not be exposed at public auction, so as to allow those other people to make a bid?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making a speech.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 52.
(for Sir A. SINCLAIR) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at what amount the Erribol sheep stock is valued as at Whitsunday, 1926, in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General so far as it relates to the trading account for the Erribol farm; and whether acclimatisation value is included in this valuation?

Major ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the period covering Whitsunday, 1926, will not, I understand, be available for a considerable time.

STEEL HOUSES.

Mr. CADOGAN: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many steel houses have been erected in Scotland by the Scottish National Housing Company and the Housing Trust, Limited?

Major ELLIOT: I am informed that, as at the 5th instant, 1,522 steel houses had been erected in Scotland by the Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited.

Mr. CADOGAN: Can the Under-Secretary tell the House whether those employed in the erection of these steel houses were paid at the building trade rates of wages?

Major ELLIOT: Any questions as to rates of wages do not arise out of this question.

Mr. SKELTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say which companies have completed their contracts, or to what extent?

Major ELLIOT: Roughly speaking, the Weir and Cowieson contracts have been practically completed. The Atholl contract is some distance from completion. It was delayed by the coal stoppage.

PRISON ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the difference in administration between prisons in England and Scotland; and if he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question of prison administration in Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: The general administration of prisons in Scotland is similar to that in England. There are certain minor differences, but these do not appear to justify the inquiry suggested. If, however, the hon. Member will explain the nature of the particular difference which he has in view, ray right hon. Friend will consider the matter.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that some prisons are very much smaller in Scotland, and therefore are in some cases unable to have a proper medical staff?

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to explain his views, I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will be glad to listen to him also.

AGRICULTURE, KINCARDINESHIRE (CHILD WORKERS).

Mr. STEPHEN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has sanctioned the request of the Kincardineshire Education Authority to allow children under 10 years of age to be employed in agricultural work?

Major ELLIOT: The proposal of the Kincardine Education Authority relates to the seasonal employment of children over 10 years of age, not under 10 years of age as suggested in the question.

Mr. STEPHEN: Has approval been given to this desire of the Kincardineshire Education Authority?

Major ELLIOT: There is a question on the Paper on that subject by another hon. Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that it is merely a clerical error—the substitution of the word "under" for "over"—and that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has asked whether his Department have or have not sanctioned this new procedure, will the hon. Member say whether he has or has not sanctioned it?

Major ELLIOT: There is another question on the Paper dealing with that point.
As a matter of courtesy, it would be as well to give the answer to the hon. Member who has asked the question.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered a proposal by the Kincardineshire Education Authority in favour of reducing the age at which school children may be employed at seasonal occupations, such as potato lifting; and whether, in view of the fact that such a proposal is contrary to educational progress and is against the interests of the children, he will withhold his approval?

Major ELLIOT: I refer to the reply given on the 30th November to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Maxton). Objections to the proposed bylaw have been lodged with my right hon. Friend, and are under consideration, but he has not yet reached a decision in the matter.

Mr. MAXTON: May we take it that the Scottish Office have definitely decided to allow children of 10 years of age to be employed in agricultural work?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member must consider the answer which I have just given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if the Secretary of State for Scotland, before sanctioning such a by-law, seeing that this is the first of the kind, will consider taking a vote of this House on the subject?

Major ELLIOT: It is not at all the first. The hon. Member is mistaken in his facts.

TEACHERS SALARIES.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 26
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if lie is prepared to institute an inquiry into the whole salary position as it affects education authorities, secondary teachers, and head-masters of secondary schools in Scotland:
(2) if he is aware of the judgment given by the House of Lords in Smart v. Education Authority of County of Perth; and what action, if any, does he propose to replace the seven years' temporary arrangement for fixing temporary teachers' salaries by a defined and fixed national minimum scale of salaries for this class of Scottish teachers?

Major ELLIOT: This whole matter has been receiving the careful consideration of my right hon. Friend and the Department, as directed by the statute, are at present in consultation with representatives of the education authorities and of the teaching profession as to the necessary action.

WESTERN ISLES (STEAMSHIP SERVICE).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered and will recommend the steamer services to the Western Isles being conducted under the mail contracts by internal-combustion vessels?

Major ELLIOT: A suggestion that any new vessel built should be equipped with internal-combustion engines has already been made to the company, and is, I understand, receiving their consideration.

LAND POLICY.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any changes in the Scottish land policy of the Government are now under contemplation?

Major ELLIOT: No decision has been taken as to any change in the Scottish land policy of the Government.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether there is any truth in the rumour that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to abolish the Board of Agriculture for Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: There is no such suggestion. As the right hon. Member knows, notice has been given in the King's Speech of a certain reorganisation of offices, but this will not amount to abolition of the Board of Agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

MEN EMPLOYED.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners who have lost their work in the pits as a result of the coal strike, indicating the number of miners working on the 1st May and at the latest available date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of persons employed in coal mines immediately before the dispute began last May was, in round figures, 1,100,000. At the latest date for which I have figures, namely the week ended 5th February, it was in round figures 1,000,000. But I urn unable to evaluate in figures all or any of the various factors which determine the number of persons employed at any given date.

Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the implication in the question that these people lost their work through the coal strike, as it is termed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member had better read my answer.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many are working only half-time and how many part-time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot answer a statistical question like that without notice.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In spite of the fact that they are alleged to be working only half-time, are they not producing more coal per week than they did in 1913?

FOREIGN COAL.

Mr. BATEY: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of Foreign coal that has been imported each month since 1st May, 1926; and whether there has been any loss on the coal imported by the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As this comes on the Estimates, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the contemplated profit?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have not made a loss. The hon. and gallant Member is wrong in saying that this comes on the Estimates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are Supplementary Estimates this afternoon.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is not a Supplementary Estimate for this. The House has already dealt with it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is an Estimate due to the increased cost of fuel in Government Departments.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is nothing in the Estimates to-day about this.

Following are the figures prone seed:

The monthly imports of coal into the United Kingdom since 1st May, 1926, are as follow:






Tons.


1926:






May
…
…
…
3,618


June
…
…
…
600,634


July
…
…
…
2,319,657


August
…
…
…
3,970,442


September
…
…
…
3,940,880


October
…
…
…
3,489,083


November
…
…
…
3,467,921


December
…
…
…
2,238,669


1927:






January
…
…
…
1,872,437

Mr. LUNN: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the total amount of foreign coal that has been unloaded at British ports since 1st December, 1926; what is the amount at present at the docks loaded and unloaded; and what is the total tonnage contracted for and expected to arrive in this country during 1927?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The quantity of coal imported and registered into ports in Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1st December, 1926, to 31st January, 1927—the latest date for which information is available—was 4,111,106 tons. I have no figures of the quantities of coal at present at the docks, or of the tonnage contracted for and not yet delivered.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of wagons at the collieries to-day, and would he say how far the shortage is caused by the conveyance of this foreign coal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it was caused to some extent by that, because there was dislocation on the railways, but obviously that must be a diminishing factor. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot obtain complete particulars of contracts that have
been entered into. I do not know to whom to go for them. The shortage must be very near its end.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the large volume of unemployment among wine workers, and the high price of imported coal, cannot something be done to prevent further imports coming into this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; that would be quite impossible. People to whom coal was vial for the conduct of their businesses or the production of food placed forward contracts, and it would be impossible to interfere with them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is purchasing the coal at present being imported, and at what price it is being sold to them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot possibly answer as to the price at which it is being sold. It is, no doubt, a price varying with every contract. Such people were driven to make large forward purchases.

Sir F. HALL: Was it not owing to the action of certain gentlemen who represent the miners that the merchants were compelled to make contracts to enable them to carry on their businesses?

DOMESTIC COAL (PRICE).

Mr. THURTLE: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the continued high price of coal for domestic consumption and the consequent hardship thereby inflicted on poor people, he is now prepared to consider whether steps can be taken to enforce a reduction of price?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government have no power to enforce a reduction in the price of coal. To do that would need legislation authorising the re-imposition of a system of control, and I do not think that such a proposal would commend itself to the House. At present the difficulties of rail transport, due to the stoppage are, I believe, still making themselves felt. When these are removed, the stimulus to low prices that should result from the great potential output of the country ought to afford a natural remedy for any inefficient methods or excessive charges on the part of retailers.

Mr. PALING: If it is true, as has been stated, that the production of coal per man has gone up, why does the price remain where it is?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Partly because of transport. There is the further fact I have referred to, that if you have a great production of coal, there is every incentive to the coal-owners to sell more cheaply, to avoid the middleman, and to go into business themselves.

Mr. PALING: Why have they not done it?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the Mines Department giving any attention to the transport question? Some of our centres are getting only a third of their weekly supply, and that is keeping up prices.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, the Mines Department and the Ministry of Transport have been in constant touch with the railway companies on the subject, not only after the trouble arose, but, seeing that there must be difficulty when the coal stocks become normal again, they took the matter up with the railway companies even before the end of the stoppage.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FUND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport what funds he expects to have available from the Road Fund for the improvement of roads and the improvement of communications in Great Britain during the current year?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The appropriations for the year 1926–27 are set out in paragraph 64 of the last Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund. No decision has yet been reached as to the appropriations for the year 1927–28.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give this information for the coming year?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not for some little time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know?

HULL (LEVEL CROSSINGS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport if he anticipates being able to make any grant from the Road Fund this year to assist the Corporation of the City of Kingston-upon-Hull and the London and North-Eastern Railway Company to abolish certain or all of the level crossings in Hull; if he is aware of the hindrance these level crossings are to traffic in the East Riding of Yorkshire and to commerce in the City of Hull; if he is aware that this evil is a growing one and will become acute when trade revives; and what is his present attitude in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: Having regard to the magnitude of the projects contemplated by the corporation, and the period which is likely to be occupied by negotiations before terms can be agreed between the parties affected, I consider it improbable that any grant from the Road Fund will be made or needed during the financial year 1927–28. While I regard sympathetically all efforts to eliminate level crossings which seriously impede transport by road, I have to bear in mind that the total number on important Class I roads is considerably in excess of 200.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the Minister mean by lack of agreement? When we saw him last year, the North-Eastern Railway Company and the Corporation were in complete agreement, and his own experts were in agreement to.

Colonel ASHLEY: The complete agreement in the one case was that the Road Fund should bear the greater part of the cost.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this work is not done now, when trade revives we shall be in a very serious position indeed on the East coast?

Colonel ASHLEY: I quite appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's view and that of his constituents, but he must remember that this is a very big scheme, which would require a-very large sum of money, and that there are many other interests and localities which have to be considered.

VICTORIA DOCK ROAD, LONDON.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to state when the scheme for the new Victoria Dock road is likely to be put in hand?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic in London included, the Victoria Dock road scheme in their survey. The recent Report of the Royal Commission is still under consideration, and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government is not yet in a position to make any statement.

MENAI BRIDGE (TOLLS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is now possible for him to afford some relief in respect of tolls to users of the Menai Bridge?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is proposed to issue season tickets at reduced rates, and at the same time to make reductions in certain tolls on vehicles. These concessions will come into force on the 1st April next, and details will be announced shortly.

Colonel DAY: Will the Minister consider a similar suggestion in connection with Shoreham Bridge?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.

ROAD SIGNPOSTS.

Colonel DAY: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any action has been taken by his Department with a view to the provision of new road signposts in order to meet the requirements of modern traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: Since the issue by my Department six years ago of a circular to all highway authorities recommending the standardisation of direction-posts and warning-posts, financial assistance has been given from the Road Fund towards the sign-posting of roads. Thanks very largely to this aid, much progress has been made in the desired direction, and I shall continue, as in the past, to encourage local authorities in the extension of this work.

Colonel DAY: Will the Minister consider having the signposts on the principal arterial roads done in luminous paint, so that they may be read at night-time?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir

TAXIMETER CABS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any Report has yet been received from the Committee which is inquiring into the question of crawling taximeter cabs; and, if so, what is its nature?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that the London Traffic Advisory Committee are still considering this question in consultation with the cab interests. I hope to receive their Report in the near future.

KENNET AND AVON CANAL.

Sir GEORGE HUME: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Great Western Railway Company to close the Kennet and Avon Canal, which will have the effect of stopping a large barge traffic, both of import and export trade, with Reading and district and the Port of London; and whether he will hold an inquiry into the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to Questions on this subject, of which I am sending him a copy.

LONDON TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 57.
(for Mr. CAMPBELL) asked the Minister of. Transport if he can now state what action it is proposed to take in connection with the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that my hon. Friend refers to the recommendations contained in the Reports of the London Traffic Advisory Committee on Travelling Facilities in North and North-East London, and in East London. These two Reports have been published, and the report on the more recent Inquiry into travelling facilities in South-East London is with the printers, and will, I hope, be available very shortly. As I explained on the 10th February, in answer to a question from the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), these Reports are under my consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make my statement in the matter.

Sir F. WISE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the setting up of a financial committee to go into the whole position?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that is the best course.

RAILWAY WAGONS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to port traders through the detention of ships which cannot be discharged owing to the lack of wagon facilities, it is proposed to give powers to railway companies to compel people to clear railway wagons promptly and not make use of them as stores on the rails?

Colonel ASHLEY: The present position is that traders who fail to clear railway wagons within a reasonable period are liable to demurrage or siding rent charges. I do not contemplate further legislation on the subject.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the very serious position which recently arose at Plymouth, since I informed him of it?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid I have not looked specially into the Plymouth case, but I have looked into a large number of cases, and the remedy, it seems to me, is for the railway companies to apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal for re-adjustment of charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — POISON GASES.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recommendation of the League of Nations Disarmament Commission that all subsidies, both to private and official laboratories promoting research in poison gases, be abolished, the British Government is prepared to give a lead in this matter; and whether the Government is prepared, in accordance with the further recommendation of the same Commission, to introduce legislation forbidding anyone, civilian or military, to perform exercises in the use of poisons and bacteria?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Until such time as a definite assurance can be obtained that all Powers are willing to adopt measures of prohibition in regard to poisons and bacteria,
His Majesty's Government must take steps to be in a position to defend itself against such attacks. For this purpose research work must be continued. In regard to the second part of the question, as long as our nationals might be exposed to attacks of this nature, it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to take steps to provide protection for them.

Mr. HUDSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that if some step were taken in the direction suggested in the question, it might inspire the action of other countries and secure the result which is desired?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will there be an opportunity at the proper time to include an appropriate clause in the revised Prayer Book?

Mr. MORRIS: Have any other Powers adopted the recommendation of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question. With regard to the other points, the difficulty in all these questions is this: No one would rejoice more than I if the whole question of poison gas and so forth could be scrapped. But not all the nations of the world, and among them one or two of the largest and most important, are vet members of the League of Nations; and the work of the League is very much circumscribed, as it must be, in these matters, until there is a universal League of which every nation will be a member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Governor of Tanganyika Territory, in a speech made at the opening of the Legislative Council, stated that Tanganyika is part of the British Empire and would remain so; and whether this represents the views of His Majesty's Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The phrase quoted by the hon. Member is a colloquial summary of the exact position as defined in the immediately preceding part of the Governor's statement, where he rightly lays down that Tanganyika is
Mandated Territory under British control and that there is no possibility of its passing from that control.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Was the Governor incorrect in stating that Tanganyika is part of the British Empire?

Mr. AMERY: No. Sir, in so far as the phrase was used colloquially for the whole framework of administration and control which is usually so designated. Of course, neither mandated territories nor protectorates are full British territory in the sense that the inhabitants are, ipso facto, British subjects.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mandates are allotted by the League of Nations, which can also take them away? How is it right, therefore, to say that there is no possibility of a mandate being given up?

Mr. AMERY: That is precisely what is not the case. The territory is allotted by the Allied and Associated Powers. The mandates are obligations which we have undertaken towards the League of Nations. They are in no sense a form of tenure which is held by us from the League of Nations, and the League of Nations is not in the position to transfer them or take them away.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVERSION LOAN.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Conversion Stock issued since 5th April, 1921: and the total actual cash and actual conversion amounts received from the transactions?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the figures in answer to this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

£823,117,000 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan has been issued mainly in 1921 and 1922: £129,660,000 3½ per cent. Stock being issued for cash proceeds of £99,991,000 and the remaining £693,457,000 3½ per cent. Stock in exchange for 5 per cent. National War Bonds, 5 per cent. Exchequer Bonds and 5½ per cent.
Treasury Bonds to a nominal amount, including premiums on repayment, of £463,575,000.

£210,587,000 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan was issued in 1924 in exchange for £148,407,000 5 per cent. War Loan and £57,728,000 5¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds. In the latter case the consideration for conversion was a cash payment of 2¼ per cent, in addition to £100 4½per cent. Stock for each £100 5¾ per cent. bond converted.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. COMPTON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to appoint a committee to inquire into the advisability of an advertisement tax and to report on the amount of revenue likely to be derived from a tax on all advertisements in newspapers, periodicals and on hoardings, electric signs, etc.?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter has, of course, in former years received close examination in the Treasury, and I do not consider that the appointment of a committee is necessary.

Mr. COMPTON: Are we to understand that the Government are not prepared to take into consideration this potential source of revenue, instead of continuing to impose taxation on the people who are least able to bear it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The hon. Member should not understand anything of the kind. We shall take into consideration every possible source of revenue, and, at the proper season of the year, we shall announce what selection we have made from among those sources.

Mr. COMPTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tale this one next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES ACT (DEFAULT CASES).

Sir F. WISE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of cases of default under the Trade Facilities Act; and what is the amount?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Up to the present, the Treasury have had to implement their guarantees in five cases, to a total of £34,837.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT PAYMENTS).

Sir F. WISE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount in sterling that we paid the United States in 1926 against our external debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Debt payments made by His Majesty's Government to the United States in 1926 amounted in round figures to. £35,000,000 sterling, of which £28,000,000 was in respect of interest, and £5,000,000 in respect of repayment of capital on the debt to the United States Government, and £2,000,000 was in respect of interest on market loans in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

EX-SERVICE CLERKS (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE).

Sir HENRY COWAN: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proposed transfer of certain non-pensionable ex-service permanent men clerks from the Customs and Excise Department to the Inland Revenue Department: and whether, in view of the fact that these clerks will be prejudiced particularly in regard to future pensionable rights by such transfer, he will consider the desirability of retaining them in their employment in the Customs and Excise Department?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): A number of permanent non-pensionable clerks who failed to qualify, or did not sit, at, the examination open to ex-service clerks for entry to the established Clerical Classes have been transferred from the Customs and Excise Department in order to admit of the assignment to the Department, in a pensionable capacity, of an equivalent number of ex-service men who were successful at that examination. The liability to such transfer is clearly laid down in the agreed conditions of service of permanent non-pensionable clerks, and I am unable to agree that the rights of the men affected have been prejudiced in any way. I regret that. I cannot entertain my hon. Friend's suggestion that the redundant clerks in question should be retained in
the employment of the Customs and Excise Department, since, apart from other considerations, this course would involve postponing the establishment of ex-service men who Faye qualified by examination for pensionable appointments.

OVERTIME

Mr. VIANT: 54 and 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the possibility of reducing a:, amount of overtime now being worked by staffs in the various Departments of State and thereby absorbing temporary staffs, declared redundant, who have received notices of discharge, or who have, actually been discharged and are registered with the Joint Substitution Board for further employment;
(2) the amount of overtime worked during the past three months by permanent and temporary grades, below the executive grade, in the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue Departments, respectively, and the total cost involved?

Mr. KELLY: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, during the year ended 31st October, 1926, the amount of overtime worked in the Inland Revenue Department was 567,000 hours, at a cost of £59,000; in the Ministry of Health Department, 273,513 hours, at a cost of £30,386; in the Customs and Excise Department, 120,000 hours, at a cost of £13,813: and in the Post Office Department, 72,100 hours, at a cost of £6,480: that the Joint Substitution Board had 372 redundant temporary clerks on the register on the 5th November," and that many temporary servants are under notice of discharge; and whether, in view of the amount of overtime revealed, he will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure a wider distribution of the work rather than the relegation of men to the unemployed?

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member for Rochdale, except that the figures given for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise Departments relate to the year ended 30th September, 1926, and that the figures given for the Post Office relate exclusively to the Money Order Department. The figures asked for in Question 55 are
40,000 and 220,000 hours respectively, at a cost of £4,103 and £20,375 respectively. The subject is not one that calls for inquiry. As I have pointed out in reply to numerous questions in the last 12 months, at times of special pressure the services of existing trained staff are sometimes essential, and overtime cannot always be avoided by the employment of further temporary staff. But every endeavour has been and is being made to carry out what I have frequently stated to be the policy of His Majesty's Government, namely, to reduce overtime to a minimum.

POST OFFICE (EX-SERVICE TEMPORARY CLERKS).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that disabled and overseas ex-service temporary clerks employed in his Department have been excluded from appointments to the permanent unestablished clerical class; that non-disabled ex-service temporary clerks and ex-service temporary clerks who did not serve overseas have been appointed to posts in this class; and that the non-selected officers have served in all cases for many years as temporary clerks and are regarded as thoroughly efficient to perform the duties of their grade; and whether, in view of the regulations issued governing the selection of ex-service temporary clerks for posts in the permanent unestablished clerical class, which provide for preference to be given to disabled and overseas men, he will say what steps it is proposed to take to appoint the officers concerned to the posts from which they have been excluded?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I am satisfied that the instructions on the subject of the selection of temporary clerks for permanent non-pensionable posts have been strictly observed in the Post Office. The only non-disabled home-service man who has been appointed to a "P" post in the Post Office had been successful in the Lytton Competition for established appointments, but had been rejected on medical grounds.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (ROAD SCHEMES).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of men
employed in road schemes assisted by the Ministry of Transport for the relief of unemployment in February of last year and at the present time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): According to the returns received 18,508 men were employed on the 27th February, 1926, on schemes approved by the Ministry of Transport for Government grant. The returns for February of this year are not yet available, but the number of men employed on the 29th January. 1927, was 14,121.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.

Mr. BRIANT: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport what are the salaries attached to positions on the Central Electricity Board?

Colonel ASHLEY: The salary fixed for the Chairman of the Central Electricity Board is £7,000 a. year, and those for the members of the board £750 a year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS TELEGRAMS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General the annual loss for the past three. years on Press telegrams; and whether he proposes to take steps to make a charge commensurate with the work done and expenses incurred so that no less to his Department may result in the future?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Expenditure cannot be apportioned with exactitude between Press and ordinary telegrams; but the hook loss on Press telegrams is roughly estimated to have been between £200,000 and, £250,000 a year in the last three years. The existing Press telegraph rates can only be altered by legislation, which I am not at present prepared to introduce. I should add that the assumption of my hon. and gallant Friend that the loss can be extinguished by increasing charges is erroneous, unless charges be so far increased as practically to extinguish the traffic. I am engaged on a review of the whole position in regard to the Inland Telegraph Service.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the very
old agreement which the Post Office made with the Press is that the maximum rate should not be increased?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

CRYSTAL SETS (LICENCES).

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the reduction of the licence for crystal wireless sets to 5s. per annum?

Sir W. MITCHELLTHOMSON: No, Sir.

Colonel DAY: Will the Minister consider a smaller fee for those people who have to use ear-phones—say 6d. per phone?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir.

BLIND PERSONS (LICENCES).

Mr. HARDIE: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General whether blind persons, having paid their wireless licence prior to 1st January, 1927, will he given a rebate on the period covered by the licence beyond 1st January, 1927?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THON1SON: The Wireless Telegraph (Blind Persons Facilities) Act, 1926, is not retrospective and contains no provision for the repayment of any part of the fees paid in respect of licences issued to blind persons before the 1st January, 1927. I cannot make a rebate in such cases.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some representation to his Cabinet to have some change made in the Bill in this respect?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is not a Bill: it is an Act.

Mr. HARDIE: I mean an amendment of the Act. Has he proposed any such amendment?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think this is really a case where the amount of the rebate would be extraordinarily small and the amount of the cost to the Exchequer would be proportionately very high.

Mr. HARDIE: Was the right hon. Gentleman aware when in working out these different figures and proportions, showing the amount to be very high on the one side and very low on the other, that no matter how small the sum might. be, to some of these blind people it is very large indeed?

Mr. HARLAND: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, as the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act, 1926, does not apply to blind persons who are resident in blind schools, blind institutions, or blind cottage homes, His Majesty's Government intend to amend the Act so that all blind persons may receive the benefit eon (erred upon other blind persons by that Act?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A blind institution, like other charitable institutions, can obtain permission for the installation of a number of wireless receiving sets under one licence at a fee of 10s. a year, and I do not think such a payment is unreasonable. The Government does not propose to amend the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act in the manner suggested.

AMATEUR ORGANISATIONS (STATIONS).

Mr. GROTRIAN: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any attempts have been made by amateur organisations in this country, and, if so, of what nature and with what result, to carry on broadcasting among the different members?

Major AINSWORTH: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the broadcasting of a regular entertainment by an amateur station at Manchester; and what action, if ally, has been taken in the matter, in view of the terms of the licence issued to the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My attention has recently been called to a case in which an experimental wireless station has been used for the transmission of concerts. The licensees claim that these conoarts are necessary for the purpose of scientific experiments which they are conducting; but I am not satisfied on this point, and I have asked them to discontinue the concerts until the matter
has been considered in the light of certain information which I have requested them to furnish.

REGIONAL STATIONS.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the attitude of his Department towards the new regional broadcasting scheme; and whether there is any hostility to this development of alternative programmes on the part of either Government Depart-merits or commercial wireless services?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I gave authority to the British Broadcasting Company last year to undertake experiments with the view of ascertaining whether a regional scheme could be adopted without causing interference between one broadcasting station and another, or between broadcasting stations and other wireless stations. The company conducted some experiments, and the corporation are at present arranging to carry out further experiments. The answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the experiments which were 'conducted from the London station were successful?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, they were not successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS BEAM TEST, AUSTRALIA.

Colonel DAY: 68.
asked the Postmaster-. General the latest results of the official wireless beam test between Australia and Great Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The contractors state that certain defects developed in the auxiliary apparatus during the recent test of the beam service between Great Britain and Australia, and they are at present engaged in correcting these defects. When this has been done, a further test will be arranged.

Colonel DAY: At what stations did these beam tests take place?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They took place between two English stations and two Australian stations—at this end at Grimsby and Skegness.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).

Mr. GILLETT: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under the Children's Employment Act, in Southern Rhodesia children who object to accepting indentures may be flogged for such refusal without any trial before a judicial officer; and whether he is prepared to consider an alteration in the law being made?

Mr. W. BAKER: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will call for a Report as to the conditions under which children in Southern Rhodesia are compelled to accept indenture; and whether he will particularly inquire as to the liability of such children to he flogged?

Mr. AMERY: In regard to the Southern Rhodesia Native Juveniles Employment Act, 1926, generally, I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell).
The position under the Act is that Native Commissioners have the power to order male juveniles to receive a summary whipping with a light cane, not exceeding 10 strokes, either for disobeying an order given by the Native Commissioner, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, or after hearing and determining a charge or complaint brought by an employer against the juvenile arising from any breach of duty due to an act or omission on the part of the juvenile. In either case, the Native Commissioner must at once send to the Attorney-General a report setting out fully the facts and circumstances.
There can be no doubt that the Native Commissioners will exercise their powers under this Act in the same admirable manner as they exercise the wide functions, judicial and administrative, which they discharge in relation to native affairs generally, and I do not propose to ask the Government of Southern Rhodesia to consider an alteration in the Act as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (MILITARY' ORDINANCE).

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 80 and 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, as he is the sole
judge according to the Malta Constitutional Letters Patent as to what is a matter of defence, his decision has been sought as to whether all the matters covered by the Military Ordinance promulgated on the 4th instant are matters of defence, and is the Ordinance at present in force;
(2) whether he has received representations from Members of both Houses of Parliament as to the advisability of disallowing a military ordinance promulgated in Malta on the 4th of February; and what were the reasons of defence which made promulgation necessary before the representations of this delegation could be considered?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to both parts of the first question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, members of the Delegation of the Empire Parliamentary Association recently in Malta have conveyed to me certain representations respecting the Ordinance made to them locally.
The issue, however, is not one of defence policy, but of the correct legal interpretation of the constitution and, while I saw no reason why the promulgation of the Ordinance should not take place, I am taking into consideration whether the matter may be a proper subject for a special reference to the Privy Council.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that there is a possibility that this Ordinance may be repealed after further consideration has been given to it?

Mr. AMERY: No. All the legal advice I could get made it clear to me that this was an Ordinance which undoubtedly fell within the purview of the Maltese Imperial Government, and outside the purview of the local Government in Malta. But, in order to make quite sure, I am endeavouring to see whether special reference can be arranged, or, failing that course, for the matter to he tested by a test action.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: In view of the positive and clear appreciation of the legal position by my right hon. Friend, does he not realise that it would be a waste of time and money to make any reference to the Privy Council?

Mr. AMERY: I took the advice, not only of the legal adviser of the Governor
but of my own legal adviser, and, as far as I am concerned, I am quite clear on the point; but I am willing to get the highest legal opinion that can be obtained.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Do I understand that the Ordinance is at present in force?

Mr. AMERY: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HALTON CAMP, WENDOVER.

Mr. KELLY: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that in the region of Halton Camp, Wendover, boards have been put up at the instance of the commanding officer to the effect that no person is allowed on the hills without a permit; whether this order has been issued with his knowledge and sanction; whether he is aware that there are a number of public field-paths in this district; and whether he will give instructions that the right of public access is to be maintained?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Royal Air Force camp at Halton is regulated by by-laws, which contain an explicit provision that there shall be no interference with public rights of way, and I am informed that this provision has been carefully observed. Notice boards have been in existence for some years, for the purpose both of indicating the rights of way and of forbidding access to lands which cannot be entered without a permit. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case in which the use of a right of way has been prevented, I will have further inquiries made, but as at present advised I cannot admit that there has been any interference with public rights.

Oral Answers to Questions — TETANUS (DOG BITES).

Colonel DAY: 85.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons who have died in London hospitals as the result of lockjaw following dog-bites during 12 months to the last convenient date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No deaths certified as due to tetanus following dog-bites took
place in any London hospital during 1925. No subsequent figures are as yet available.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several reports have appeared lately of inquests in these cases?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER, 1923.

Mr. WELLS: 86.
asked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the charges at present made for licences, as set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Milk and Dairies Order, 1923, with a view to their reduction, and so assist those agriculturists desirous of providing the public with milk of grade A quality?

Sir K. WOOD: The charges made by local authorities for Grade A milk licences are designed to cover the cost of supervision and bacteriological examination, and, on the information at present before him, my right hon. Friend does not consider that they could properly be reduced.

Mr. WELLS: Has the hon. Gentleman received any representations from the local authorities on this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of any, but I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. FENBY: 87.
asked the Minister of Health how many town planning schemes have scheduled land for allotments; and how many acres have been scheduled for this purpose?

Sir K. WOOD: Four out of 20 approved schemes and 27 out of 94 approved preliminary statements contain provision for the reservation of land for allotments, the total acreage of the land so reserved being approximately 780. These figures must not be taken as an indication of the total land which will be used for allotments, because it is often more convenient to determine at a later stage what land is required for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEMICAL WARFARE RESEARCH.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of the different kinds of live animals used for experimental purposes at the chemical
warfare research station at Sutton Oak since the establishment of the station; how many were killed by experiments; and how many had to be destroyed as a result of the effects of the experiments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No animals have been used for experimental purposes in the research establishment at Sutton Oak.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES.

Mr. GILLETT: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of beet-sugar factories receiving Government subsidies and how many people are employed in them; the amount of land used for this industry; and the number of persons employed upon it?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Fourteen beet-sugar factories in Great Britain received subsidy in the 1926-27 manufacturing seasons and about 6,500 persons were employed in these factories. The area under sugar beet in 1926 was 129,463 acres. Employment on the land on sugar-beet cultivation is mostly seasonal, and I have no particulars as to the number of persons engaged.

Mr. FENBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman in view what will become of these beet-sugar factories when the subsidy ends?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think we had better wait for that time before we form any opinion, but, in view of the increased yield and the increased percentage of sugar, I think the outlook is very hopeful.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the total area of arable land under cultivation has increased since the beet factories were erected?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question, but I am pretty sure it has not.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING DUTY (PROSECUTIONS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 76.
asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions to date under the Betting Duty Regulations?

Mr. McNEILL: The total number of prosecutions in connection with the Betting Duty was 44 up to the 8th February.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: How many of these prosecutions were successful?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not certain, but my impression is that there was a conviction in every case.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many were for avoiding the Betting Duty, or for not taking out betting licences?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — OSBORNE NAVAL COLLEGE.

Sir F. WISE: 84.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the decision of the Admiralty in regard to the future of Osborne Naval College?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Osborne Naval College buildings have been transferred to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, who are now taking steps with a view to effecting a letting.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can answer the question?

Mr. GUINNESS: Well, the decision of the Admiralty really is that they do not want these buildings, and that is why they have been transferred to the Department of Crown Lands.

Sir F. WISE: Have these buildings been sold?

Mr. GUINNESS: They have been transferred to the Department of Crown Lands. There were some negotiations, but they, unfortunately, fell through.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: With the leave of the House, I desire to make a personal statement. In an irrelevant and inaccurate answer to a question I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), in the course of his speech last night, he said:
At any rate, it was the time when my hon. Friend was an Independent Labour Party organiser."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1927; col. 608, Vol. 202.]
This statement is entirely without foundation, for at no time, in any way,
have I been guilty of the folly of being connected with any branch of the Labour party.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! A personal statement must be entirely without any controversial matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise for the words additional to those which I had originally prepared, but I was a little provoked. I am informed that the statement was based on an extract from the biographies of Conservative Members of Parliament which are kept at the headquarters of the Labour party, and, therefore, if the statement is not contradicted in the most unqualified way, it may be repeated under circumstances when it might be politically disadvantageous to myself. I am in the happy position of being able to establish a complete alibi against the grave charge of being a Socialist by means of news cuttings, which I have with me here, showing a continuous record of work for the Conservative party from the time I was an undergraduate at the University of Liverpool. Furthermore, the alibi could also be established by the personal testimony of present Members of the House of Commons. In these circumstances. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his statement without any qualification whatsoever.

Mr. THOMAS: I make no comment, and leave it to the House, certainly to Members who have heard personal explanations before, to compare the opening sentences of the hon. Member on this occasion. I have only to say, that if I did the hon. Member an injustice, I withdraw it. I had certainly no desire to associate him with an organisation whose work and record need no apology in this House. If he feels that it did him an injustice, I have no hesitation in saying I withdraw it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

NAVY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, my hon. Friend (Major Tasker) will call attention to the increased need for Scientific Research, and move a Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is it on this day fortnight or is it on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. COMPTON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Necessitous Areas, or to the position in the Mining Industry, and move a Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: We can have only one subject at a time.

Mr. COMPTON: I shall call attention to the question of Necessitous Areas, and move a Resolution.

POSTAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to the Postal and Telephone Services, and move a Resolution.

AIR FORCE (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT).

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Force Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for an International Agreement, and move a Resolution.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Force Estimates, I shall cal] attention to the need for an International Agreement, and move a Resolution.

LAND FORCES (REDUCTION).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a Reduction in the Land Forces, and move a Resolution.

MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the condition of the Mining Industry, and move a Resolution.

SMALL-POX.

Dr. WATTS: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the
Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to the serious oatbreaks of Smallpox, and move a Resolution.

ARMY (AIR ARM).

Sir HENRY COWAN: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, my hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Sugden) will call attention to the Air Arm of the Army, and move a Resolution.

CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the qiestion of the decay of Civil Liberties, and move a Resolution.

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. BROMLEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Education Administration, and move a Resolution.

CONDITION OF TRADE.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to the Condition of Trade, and move a Resolution.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, my hon. Friend (Sir A. Sinclair) will call attention to the administration of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and move a Resolution.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on_ the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a reduction in Naval Armaments, and move a Resolution.

SOLICITORS.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Solicitors.
This Bill is one which is intended to remedy a defect, or to stop a loophole, in the lair relating to disciplinary measures against solicitors who are guilty of professional misconduct. Many Members of the House will be aware that
matters of discipline with regard to solicitors have been entrusted by Statute to the Law Society, acting through the Council of that Society; and a Statutory Committee set up under Act of Parliament deals with all applications which are made against solicitors, subject to appeals to the Courts. In serious cases, the usual punishment of a solicitor who has been guilty of professional misconduct or of an offence against his client. is either to strike him off the Roll of Solicitors, or, in the somewhat less serious cases, to suspend him from practice for a certain time. It has been found that that punishment in some eases has been evaded to the very serious detriment of those who are not aware of the suspension and who may get into the hands of the defaulting solicitor. It is in order to remedy that defect, that this Bill has been prepared. It is brought forward at the instance of the Council of the Law Society, the Parliamentary Committee of which has thrashed out the terms of the Bill very carefully, and, if the House gives me leave to introduce it, it will be introduced in exactly the same form as it actually passed in another place towards the end of last Session, but too late to be dealt with by this House.
I am authorised to say that the Bill in this form has the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Department and also of the Master of Rolls, who is the Judge who has the appointment of the Committee of the Law Society who first deal with these cases; also that it has the approval of the Attorney-General, a member of the Government and Leader of the English Bar. I am happy to he able to say that the Bill will be supported by an ex-Law Officer of the Labour party and an ex-Law Officer of the Liberal party. It is a simple Bill to meet what I may call a crying scandal from, which members of the public are apt to suffer. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to introduce it, and that it may pass into law at an early date. I desire only to say that, if leave be given to introduce the Bill, it will he printed at once, and, if any hon. Member would like any further information about it, I myself or any of the Members whose names will be found on the back of the Bill, will be very happy to give that information or any explanation which may be possible. I am taking the oppor-
tunity of this method of procedure in the hope that, having the goodwill of the Government behind the Bill, we shall have the goodwill of the Members of the House generally, and that it will be given its Second Reading after Eleven o'Clock one night, in order that it may go before a Standing Committee as soon as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Herbert, Sir "William Bull, Sir John Simon, Sir Henry Slesser, and Mr. Withers.

SOLICITORS BILL,

"to amend the Law relatin4 to Solicitors," presented accordingly, and read the First time.; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

FANCY JEWELLERY (STANDARD TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL,

"to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, and to define certain trade descriptions as applied to articles in the fancy jewellery and allied trades," presented by Mr. HANNON; supported by Sir Evelyn Cecil, Sir Francis Lowe, Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, Sir Edward Iliffe, Mr. Burman, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Jephcott, and Sir Philip Dawson; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926.

Revised Estimate presented,—of the further sum required in the year ending 31st March, 1927, for the House of Commons [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply and to be printed. [No. 17.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.

CLASS I.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

4.0 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): In presenting this Supplementary Estimate I do not think I should be warranted in embarking on any long discussion as to the value of Supplementary Estimates in principle. My reasons are twofold. In the first place, if I were to do so you, Mr. Chairman, would no doubt rule me out of order; and in the second place, the members of this Committee are not all in complete agreement on that subject, in spite of the weighty arguments used by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury 12 months ago—they are not in agreement as to the value of Supplementary Estimates, and I do not wish on this occasion to strike any note of disagreement.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be in order in pursuing this aspect of the matter.

Captain HACKING: I quite understand that, Sir, and that is why I am going on at once to consider these Supplementary Estimates. I know that I cannot strike any note of discord if I stick rigidly to the extra expenditure I am asking the Committee to sanction. It is quite clear from the paper which has been presented to the Committee, and I hope it will be made abundantly clear
after my short explanation, that the amount which I ask for is not only necessary, but could not possibly have been foreseen. The original Estimate of the Office of Works was for a sum of £5,000,000. The Supplementary Estimate for which I am asking amounts to £79,473, an increase of only 1.4 per cent. on the original Estimate. Such accuracy obviously shows care in the preparation of the original Estimate, which, but for the coal stoppage, would have been almost completely accurate.
The first Vote I ask the Committee to consider is Class I, Vote 8, and I ask them to grant £37,000 for extra expenditure in Post Office and telegraph buildings for fuel and household articles. The original net Estimate, as mentioned on page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates, was for £1,325,100. The Vote I am asking for is an increase of only 2.8 per cent. on the original Estimate. The increase is solely due to the extra cost of fuel arising from the stoppage in the coalfield. The original Estimate for fuel was £120,000, and the revised Estimate is £189,000, the difference being £69,000, shown in the third column on page 4.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry, but it is £140,000—unless I am looking at the wrong Estimate.

Captain HACKING: The original estimate for fuel, not for fuel and household articles, was £120,000. The revised estimate for fuel was £189,000. The sum of money, £140,000, which the hon. and gallant Member is looking at is fuel and household articles. The revised estimate for fuel is £189,000, making a difference of £69,000, the amount shown in the third column. The coal dispute lasted from May to December. We started, at the beginning of the dispute, with a stock of 5,000 tons of fuel in London, and that lasted until September. It may interest the Committee to know that the consumption normally throughout all services is approximately 300,000 tons. So great was the economy brought to bear by the Office of Works that only 70,000 tons of foreign fuel were purchased in the three months, which are usually three very heavy ninths for the consumption of fuel.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that for the whole Government?

Captain HACKING: As far as the Office of Works is concerned. The Office of Works supplies most of the Departments. Prices were very much increased, and the reason for this Supplementary Estimate is that we had to pay approximately twice as much for foreign coal as for English coal; and the same thing applies, approximately, to coke. The anticipatory savings on other subhead's amount to £32,000. They accrue under Subhead N of the main estimate, which deals with new works, post office buildings, etc., and are due to a slowing down of the work owing to the difficulty of obtaining steel and other building materials consequent upon the stoppage of production caused by the industrial upheaval. Roughly, 60 building schemes were affected by the shortage of materials. That is really all there is to say about this estimate. There is nothing hidden at all; everything is on the surface. I can assure the Committee that the only excess expenditure is due to the extra cost of fuel which we had to purchase from abroad. I have taken the Committee completely into my confidence, because they have a right to know the facts, and I hope they will show their appreciation of my frankness by allowing me to have this sum of money without much discussion.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am sure we are very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his lucid explanation of this increase. There is only one question I wish to put. Is the contract for coal for public buildings made over a long period? Was it necessary to go into the open market during the coal stoppage to buy coal at the prices then ruling? If it be not the practice of the Office of Works to make yearly contracts, then they are not adopting a practice which is generally followed by other public bodies; and if they do make contracts then I would like to know from what date and for what length of time those contracts were made. If contracts are made, assuming they had been for 12 months, this demand to-day for money for the increased price of coal would have been obviated altogether.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member began in a very interesting way, and I am sorry he was out of order, but I must say I think it is rather unusual for a Minister
to attack the question of the right of Parliament to examine Supplementary Estimates. I have been in the House as many years as the hon. and gallant Member, and he has not heard, nor have I ever heard, a Minister question the right of Parliament, or try to question the right of Parliament, to discuss Estimates. That would have been an interesting discussion for a private Member's night, and I must try to oblige the hon. and gallant Member on some occasion, and we can then have a Debate on the matter As he told us, he was remarkably frank. He told us that this Supplementary Estimate is occasioned by the increase in the price of fuel arising out of the events of last year.
The hon. and gallant Member went on to say that the whole estimate was some millions of pounds. The whole cost of Class 1 is £1,325,000, and there is only an increase of £69,000 on this vast Estimate. The argument which has been used is a little vague, because this increase is more than 50 per cent. on the cost of fuel, household articles and candles, and only £120,000 is spent on fuel. Therefore, on £120,000 it is a very large amount to pay an extra £69,000, and that is quite a different story. It is really over 50 per cent. increase.
This raises one or two points of great importance, and I shall endeavour to show how useful and necessary it is for the House of Commons to examine very closely the Supplementary Estimates. It may appear that this is a small sum when part of it relates to savings. The Office of Works bought 70,000 tons of coal from abroad, but the Government actually bought 5,000,000 tons of coal from abroad. We have another Estimate for that, and it was purchased so as to be available for certain services and weak municipalities in order that they would not have to pay through the nose for their coal supply. Apparently, it was not noticed that the Office of Works was one of these weak corporations, because they went into the market themselves and bought foreign coal through the nose to the extent of over 60 per cent.
My first question is, Why did the Office of Works not purchase their coal from the Government out of this 5,000,000 tons which they have purchased abroad? Then they would have saved the nation having to pay this extra amount. On
the other hand, if they did buy from the Government, how is it that we have now to shoulder this loss? At Question Time today the President of the Board of Trade was asked a question as to the loss or otherwise in connection with the purchase of foreign coal by the Government, and we were told that there had been no loss. Then I asked if there had been any profit, but we did not receive any answer to that question. I think it is necessary to have these explanations on the Supplementary Estimates. If the Government have, in fact, made a profit on the purchase of this 5,000,000 tons, they should show us where the profit comes in. Otherwise, we are bound to assume that they have "sold a pup," so to speak, to the Office of Works, and we are now asked to foot the bill. We have to find this £69,000 in order that the Board of Trade may show a spectacular profit on their total purchase of 5,000,000 tons of coal. If this be what the Office of Works has done, we may be sure the other Government Departments have been doing the same thing. Why is it that each Government Department buys coal separately? It is a fact that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force combine to buy coal.

The CHAIRMAN: That question would be more appropriate on going into Committee of Supply on the annual Estimates. We are dealing now only with this particular Office of Works Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the Office of Works found themselves short of coal, why did they not go to some other Government Department like the Admiralty or the War Office and combine with them to buy coal? Why is it necessary for them to buy, coal direct? Of course, if they go into the market to buy a small packet of coal like this, they must expect to pay a higher price. I am told that the Borough of West Ram purchases twice this amount of coal. It is really only the case of a poor woman who has to buy coal by the sack from a man going round with a lorry, and of course she has to pay a higher price. If the Office of Works buy a large quantity of coal when there is a shortage, naturally they would have to pay more, and I contend that that is bad business. Those are the two questions I would like to put, and,
if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can make it clear through whom this coal was bought, and show me that none of this money has gone in middlemen's profits, I shall be satisfied.
I want to know whether the Government bought this coal abroad in bulk, or whether it was said to certain coal factors who sold it again to the Office of Works. I shall be glad to be assured that that was not done, and that no unfair profit was made. I do want to make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, I do not intend to allow the Government to ride off on the excuse that the coal stoppage meant extra expense, because they will use that argument for years if we do not check them. It is very much like the War, after which everything was put down to the War. Small as this sum of money is, a very large principle is involved, and this Committee is only doing its duty in making certain that everything is done to the best possible advantage.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) asked an interesting question in regard to the coal contract. I think we are sure to find that there was no real way of protecting the Government against loss in contracts of this kind. Either the contracts were short-term contracts or long-term contracts, and if they were long-term contracts then they no doubt contained "strike and lock-out" clauses.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That would relate only to supply, and not to the price.

Mr. YOUNG: It would protect the vendor against loss. Throughout the coal-using world, long term contracts were in existence while the purchaser of coal was unable to enforce the conditions because that would have the effect of ruining the vendor. Throughout these Estimates we have charges arising owing to the coal strike, and this is one instance. May we not ask for a return in all these Supplementary Estimates of the total extra cost owing to the coal strike.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman should ask for that information at Question Time.

Mr. YOUNG: This particular Estimate shows only a single phase of the matter
in question, and I wish to call attention to the fact that we are dealing with only one aspect of a matter which will constantly occur throughout these Estimates, the additional cost thrown upon the nation owing to the stoppage in the coal trade. At present we have no complete view of the total cost of the coal stoppage.

Mr. GILLETT: I do not want to touch upon the point which has been raised by the last speaker, but I wish to refer to the anticipated savings. The Under-Secretary gave us no information as to how the savings had been effected. With regard to the item dealing with new works and alterations, I should like to have heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman why so large a sum of money has been technically saved. If a building has been commenced, the sooner it is finished the better, and we should like to know why so much money has been saved on these particular buildings.
There is one particular instance to which I desire to allude. For years the Government have owned land on one of these sites which is lying vacant. Near by there is a small post office in private hands, which it is the intention of the Government ultimately to do away with, and combine the private post office with the Government building. Years go by and this land continues to lie idle, and very slow progress is being made with the building. It does not seem to me that savings of that kind are of any advantage whatever, because when you estimate the loss on the vacant land, it will be seen that it would be far better to have the whole thing finished off at once. The building I refer to is well known to the Under-Secretary—

The CHAIRMAN: When a saving arises in connection with a Supplementary Estimate, hon. Members cannot discuss the policy of the Department. Inquiries may be made as to the reason for the saving, but the general policy cannot be discussed.

Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps the Under- Secretary will say how these savings have occurred. I know the Mount Pleasant Post Office is connected with this matter. I would like to know if any delay has come about in connection with the finishing of this particular building, and whether it has been decided to carry
through the whole scheme. That is the essential point upon which I want information. I hope we shall not have to go away with the impression that buildings of this kind are being delayed in regard to their final construction in consequence of these savings.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I confess that I am rather confused if the figures which have been given to us are in accordance with the actual facts. The Office of Works is responsible for 300,000 tons of coal. We have been referred to the Vote in the annual Estimates for fuel, which he says amounts to £126,000. That would imply that the Office of Works, previous to the dispute, were purchasing their fuel at less than 10s. per ton, but, since the dispute arose and they required 70,000 tons more fuel, they had to pay £69,000 extra for it. First of all, it seems to me that the Government, who, after all, were in no way totally excluded from the dispute, were before the dispute obtaining their coal at a comparatively cheap rate.
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will say where the Government purchased this coal from. We ought to know that. We ought to know whether it was purchased direct or from importers who were importing coal during that period and, indeed, are importing coal to-day at the expense of 100,000 or 200,000 miners who are out of work. We want to know whether the Government have been dealing with importers, and if so we ought to be told what the price of the coal was in the foreign country from which this 70,000 tons were purchased prior to the dispute. We want to know what price the importers paid during the dispute, and what price per ton the Government paid to the importer, so that we shall have some idea as to how these patriotic importers exploited the nation during the coal dispute. Then we are entitled to know what was the cost of transport compared with the pre-stoppage price? We ought to know whether the patriotic shipowners took advantage of the opportunity further to exploit the nation. It is true that £37,000 out of an estimate of £1,325,000 is comparatively small, but, at least, we are entitled to know where the money went and to what extent the Government Departments, which are responsible for the purchase and use of the fuel, have lent themselves to unneces-
sary exploitation by these super-patriots who were condemning the miners. After all, we find the Government were buying very dear foreign coal instead of very cheap British coal, and we ought to know, before we allow the Vote to go through, why the very men who have been called upon to suffer such hardships should be called upon to pay these extra sums to foreigners. I want to ask further what proportion of this £69,000 was actually expended on the purchase of coal, and what proportion upon candles.

Captain HACKING: None.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us whether any proportion of the £69,000 was expended on articles for offices. The items referred to are fuel and household articles for offices, or fuel, candles and articles for offices. What I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can clear our minds upon is this: We have the figures of the consumption of coal per annum prior to the dispute, the amount purchased during the dispute and the figure here of £69,000, presumably for the various articles. We are entitled to know if the whole of the £69,000 was exclusively expended on this extra fuel, this extra 70,000 tons, which shows an increase of £1 for each ton purchased. If he can tell us that, we shall be able to satisfy ourselves whether or not the price is a legitimate one. I do not want to argue at all against meeting an obligation which has been contracted during an extraordinary period in our industrial life, but at least we are entitled to know, first of all, how it is that the Government which could secure British coal apparently at less than 10s. a ton prior to the dispute have lent themselves on one side of the dispute, and then have bought coal from foreign ports and paid more than three times as much for it as they could obtain coal, probably of a better quality, in Britain. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us anything about that, perhaps we shall be satisfied to let him have his Vote.

Colonel WOODCOCK: How the hon. Member can adduce the fact that this coal cost an extra £1 a ton, I cannot make out, either from the figures the Minister gave us or from the figures that
appear on the Estimate. He is making a calculation of £69,000 for 70,000 tons. If he will look below, he will find, "Fuel and household articles less anticipated savings on other sub-heads." We want to know the proportion of that. I should also like to ask as to the provision which was made for this great strike that we had in May. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lockout!"] I am referring to the strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was no strike in May!"] I wish to know whether the articles that were purchased, the candles and household articles, were only purchased in anticipation of the strike being prolonged or whether they are still in stock, and can be used during the subsequent months. If that is so, that will ever further reduce the Supplementary Estimate of £37,000.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I think the Committee is getting a little fogged. As far as I can make out, there is £69,000 additional for fuel. I gather that is the position of the Minister. The words "household articles and candles" are down here, but there is no real expenditure under these heads £69,000 is the actual cost to the nation as the result, we are told, of the necessity for having additional fuel. What I want to question is the form, although I suppose it is the correct form, in this case a technical form, of saving there is a saving of £32,000. That is only a saving so far as the work is not done. The money will have to be expended to carry out the work which was anticipated. Consequently we are actually up against this sum of £69,000, because when I turn over to the other Estimates, I notice that a deficiency is stated in some parts, and that means that more money has been expended than was estimated for. In this case it is really £69,000 increased expenditure in connection with the fuel supplied. It is therefore very essential that we should know whether the coal came from the Government supply or was directly purchased from the Office of Works.

Mr. W. BAKER: About this time last year I joined with some of my colleagues in an appeal for a fuller and more explanatory statement from the Minister in placing a Supplementary Estimate before the House, and the hon. Gentleman went a considerable way to meet the request that was made. Having regard
to the force with which the inquiries concerning coal have been placed before the Committee, I merely desire to associate myself with those inquiries. No one so far has dealt with the suspension of work upon the various buildings. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say work had been suspended on 60 buildings owing to the coal stoppage. On reference to the main Estimate, I find that the number of works in progress totalled 90, and that the works proposed were 26, making a total of 116. I am led to believe that the stoppage was complete. To cease work on 60 buildings out of a total of 116 seems to be rather a large proportion, especially when it is remembered that in every case those buildings would be part of a programme which has been delayed very largely because of the war, and the resulting heavy national expenditure, and they have been delayed in many cases for quite a number of years. I shall be very grateful indeed if the hon. Gentleman could tell us which are the buildings that made that total of 60, and whether we can definitely understand that the work which was delayed, apparently for good reasons, has now been resumed, and that the time that was lost owing to the coal stoppage will be made up as rapidly as possible.

Mr. PALING: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what stocks these were. Were they bought from abroad or were they British coal bought in London? Secondly I understood him to say that 300,000 tons of coal would have been used under normal circumstances, but that, owing to economy and other means being practised, the actual amount used was 70,000 tons. Am I right in understanding that the 300,000 tons is included in the figure of £140,350, and that the 70,000 tons which was actually used has cost the original £140,000 plus the £69,000 which is now being asked for? If that is so, could he tell us what was the Price of British coal before the lock-out started and what is the actual price paid for the 70,000 tone which have actually been used.

Mr. TAYLOR: Could the hon. Gentleman give us some further information as to the proportion of foreign and British coal represented by this Supplementary Estimate? It would appear on the face of it that if the additional £69,000 had
been paid, and only 70,000 tons of coal had been used, if the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) is anything like accurate, the Department must have paid very much more than the market price ruling during the period of the coal dispute. It would be a great advantage if he could tell us what was the average price paid month by month during the period these figures cover. Further, could he tell us what proportion of this coal came from Germany and the price paid for it, that we might compare that with the figure given some time ago by the President of the Board of Trade to see whether or not the Department has been buying at the market price. He might also give us some information as to the attitude of his Department during the period of this unfortunate dispute in the coal industry. We heard from him that it was almost entirely due to this unfortunate event. I should have thought that the Government had ample powers under the Emergency Regulations to ensure that the production of British coal should be carried on for the public services at a price certainly very much less than appears to have been paid by the Office of Works. I should like to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's chief used his influence in the Cabinet to prevent the continuance of this unfortunate dispute.

The CHAIRMAN: The question of what one Minister may have said to another cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. TAYLOR: I was trying to relate that point to the Estimates before the Committee, because the Committee may be very unwilling to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman this Vote unless it felt that he had made every effort to secure coal for his Department at something like a reasonable price, based on the cost of production in this country. If that is out of order, I will not pursue it any further. I hope he will give us some definite information as to the proportion of foreign coal and the price paid for it month by month, so that we may see whether or not the supply of coal to his Department has been round about the market prices ruling from time to time.

Mr. BATEY: I desire to move to reduce the Vote by £100. I am sorry that
I had not the advantage of hearing the Minister's statement, because I should like to have heard the defence of the Government for this Vote. This Supplementary Estimate would have been altogether unnecessary but for the policy pursued by the Government last year. The Government are now beginning to meet the bills which are coming in as a result of their policy last year. As I did not hear the Minister, perhaps I shall be pardoned if I put one or two questions to him. I am not very clear, but I rather think that he said to a colleague of mine, since I came in, that this £69,000 was wholly for fuel. As I read the Estimate, I think there were three things—fuel, candles and household articles for offices. I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us definitely whether this sum is only for fuel of if there is anything for candles—

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister has already stated that the sum of £69,000 is entirely for fuel.

Mr. BATEY: That makes the case for the Ministry worse. I did not think the case was so black against the Ministry as it now appears to be. As long as there were other items in the supplementary Estimate, an hon. Member might be led to believe that the bulk of this money was not for fuel but for the other articles. Some of us want to make our position in this matter perfectly clear. We regard what the Minister calls "fuel" as blackleg coal, which the Government brought into the country to defeat the miners last year. In every Estimate that comes before the House, in which one penny appears for this blackleg coal, we shall divide the House because, on principle, we are opposed to blackleg coal and to the Government spending a single penny of the British taxpayers' money for the purchase of such coal. In this matter we stand in the interests of the nation. [HON MEMBERS: "Question"] That is beyond question. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, speaking on public platforms, say that they stand in the interests of the nation. Here is a very glaring case, in which the Government acted against the interests of the nation, and we have to take a stand on behalf of those interests.
I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us when this coal was
bought. A rather important answer was given at Question time to the effect that from let December to the end of January, no less than 4,100,000 tons of blackleg coal were brought into this country. The 1st December was the time when our collieries restarted. From that time, there has been imported 4,100,000 tons of coal, which is equal to a week's production in this country. That means that our collieries have lain idle for a full week since their re-start on 1st December. I should like to know how much of this blackleg coal has been bought since 1st December. It was bad enough to buy it before that date, whether it was in September or October; it was bought then for the deliberate purpose of defeating the miners; but this is far worse.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the general question of the importation of coal. He is quite it order in asking what the particular coal was and where it came from, but the general policy of buying foreign coal cannot be gone into.

Mr. BATEY: I was trying to be as careful as possible. I do not want to come into collision with the Chair, and I thought I was steering clear of the rocks in putting this matter in that way. We are entitled to know whether any of this coal was bought in Germany or not, a country with which, only a few years ago, Ministers said that they would never think of doing any business in future. We ought to know how much the coal cost per ton. One of my colleagues said that the increased cost was £1 per ton. The Minister must remember that the big price which the Office of Works had to pay for this coal was due to the Government's blundering. Before 1st May, the cost of a ton of coal produced in this country was only 17s. 3d. During the month of April that was the average cost, and the miners were satisfied with that. Therefore, if this coal has cost an exorbitant price, it has been due to the blunders of the Government. There was no need for it, the miners were prepared to go on at the old rates, which were an average of only 17s. 3d. a ton, because—

The CHAIRMAN: That sort of argument was relevant to the coal stoppage last year, but is not relevant to this Estimate.

Mr. BATEY: I do not want to be ruled out of Order, but I desire as much information on this matter as I can get. We tried to get information last year, but could not do so. Now the bill has come in to be paid, and we are entitled to have the information before we pay it, I submit that the Government are alone to blame for having to pay such a huge price for blackleg coal, and that, but for the foolish policy which they pursued last year, there would have been no need to have paid such a large price. The Minister should tell us how this coal came into this country and whether or not it came in British ships manned by British sailors. I remember reading, during the coal stoppage last year, that the shipowners saw their chance and had the time of their lives; that they made huge profits out of the increase in freights in bringing coal into this country from abroad. Shipowners never troubled to think a little bit about the interests of this country; they saw a chance of making wealth and they went out to make it. We should know whether the Government were caught by any of these shipowners in bringing in this coal. Again, what was the Government's experience in regard to this coal? Was some of it German lignite coal? Was it as good as British coal? We have our suspicions that it was not. Reports that we read in the Press stated that the experience in regard to the use in railway engines of this blackleg coal showed that it was not to be compared with British coal. The Minister ought to give us as much information on this Estimate as he possibly can.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I will not follow the particular investigation which the Members of the Opposition are making as to the price of this coal. The last two speakers have made some observations on the matter. One asked whether the Minister had made every effort to impress on the Government the necessity of not using so much coal, and another asked whether the Government were using what he termed "blackleg coal." My only observation is to say that I think both those observations are somewhat belated. A great deal of this coal was used for heating this Chamber, and I heard not one single objection coming
from Members opposite that they would carry out their duties in this House in a cold atmosphere.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Should not this discussion come on the Vote for Parliament Buildings?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. I do not think that any coal for the heating of this House is included in this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was only endeavouring to point out that the observations which have been made to-day might with more advantage have been made by way of question and answer while this coal was being burnt rather than after it had been burnt. I think that really the only relevant question which does arise on this Estimate is this. Everybody knows perfectly well that everybody cut down the amount of coal which they used. I think the Office of Works are to be congratulated on cutting down the amount of coal used by Government Departments, and they are to be congratulated that this Supplementary Estimate is no bigger than it is. I should like to ask whether the investigations which necessarily had to be made during the coal stoppage into the cutting down of the amount of coal used by the various Government Departments have been of such a nature that the Office of Works can see a saving in later years as a result of those investigations? If that is so, perhaps in this small respect the stoppage may have been a blessing in disguise. I suggest that that is really the only relevant question because the question of the price of coal is one, as hon. Members are quite aware, of the world market price that had to be paid owing to the coal stoppage.

Mr. J. JONES: I wish that I had happened to have been a miner or particularly interested in the coal trade in order that I might second the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to reduce this Vote by £100.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Spennymoor omitted to move that reduction at the end of his speech. Of course, it is open to the hon. Member to move.

Mr. BATEY: I thought I moved it at the beginning.

HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

Mr. BATEY: I started off by moving it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member announced his intention of moving it at the beginning, and he did not conclude by moving it, but the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) is quite capable of moving the reduction.

Mr. JONES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
Some people are born to fame and others receive it. Some do not deserve it, and I am one of the latter party, but I am quite in earnest in moving the reduction of this Estimate by £100, not merely because of the amount of the expenditure on this coal, but because I can remember hearing, when I first arrived in this House, in my ignorance and innocence, some hon. Members denounce in very round terms the enemy which we had to defeat. I never thought at that time, that when industrial troubles developed in this country, the first place we should run to to find allies to defeat the British miners would be the very people whom we had been denouncing up bill and down dale previously. Now we find that, apart altogether from normal expenditure, we are paying, on the average, nearly a ton more for German and foreign coal than we paid our own miners for the production of a better article. The people who wave the Union Jack in front of the union jackasses are now presenting the bill, and this is only one small Department, the smallest, perhaps, of all Government Departments. Here comes one with their little bill. It is a try-on a little bit of sugar for the bird £69,000 is the estimate over and above normal expenditure, and it is all for fuel. Hon. Members opposite talk about coke and the heating of this House. We can give this House all the heat it wants, and during the course of these Debates we hope to provide all the necessary means whereby the people opposite will get cold feet.

The CHAIRMAN: No coal or coke for this House is included.

Mr. JONES: I know that, but they will get plenty of it where they are going.

The CHAIRMAN: To speak of the ultimate destination of hon. Members of this House is still less in order.

Mr. JONES: I am moving this reduction because this is the first opportunity we have had of doing so. A lot of this coal, I understand, has been used at Woolwich. The Government Department concerned is one of the Departments which is not merely responsible for the buying of foreign coal but is responsible for cutting down necessary and essential work in order to save money. The Office of Works is responsible for the maintenance and repairs of all Government buildings. It is also responsible for the carrying out of great housing schemes in different parts of the country. One hundred and sixteen of these schemes have been adopted. Who by? Not by us. These building schemes have been adopted by the party opposite during their term of office or they have been the successors of schemes previously adopted by those who went before them, but we are told that, because of the coal dispute, these schemes had to be cut down to 60. We would like to know how many of these 60 schemes that they finally adopted are now being carried into effect. The coal dispute is over. So far as the home production of coal is concerned we have reached almost normal. There is, in addition, an amount of 400,000 tons of imported coal in this country, so that the stoppage of this great building work cannot be said to be due to the fact that we have no coal to go on with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] Hon. Members are no doubt greater authorities on this than I am, but they know as well as I do that this is simply a diplomatic excuse to place all the blame on those who happen to be thrown out of work. What the workers outside this House want to know is why you are paying this enormous price for foreign coal when 200,000 miners of this country are out of employment because you have a huge stock of coal for which you are paying exorbitant prices, brought from abroad. We are paving in the East End of London at present 3s. a cwt. for blackleg coal.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the coal which the Office of Works is using.

Mr. JONES: No, and it is a good job that the Office of Works and the Government are not using it. Perhaps they are
shifting it on to all the dogs, and we are the dogs. People in the East End are paying 3s. a cwt for this rubbish, and they cannot get anything else because they are told that stocks must be got rid of.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this particular Estimate of £69,000.

Mr. JONES: It is relevant to the fact that the Government have not been robbing themselves, but robbing the people of this country and this Estimate is an attempt to get out of it. I can only re-echo what the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has said, that every time we get an opportunity of raising this we shall do so in order to show the patriotism of those who support it.

Captain HACKING: I ought not to complain of the reception which has been given to this Supplementary Estimate. The questions that have been asked are all questions which hon. Members have a perfect right to ask. I have to thank the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) for saying that he is pleased at my opening statement which, I am afraid, raised some practical difficulties. I think the hon. Member would have been less generous had we had a short discussion. On the other hand, if I had said nothing, the Opposition would have demanded a great deal more information. I will try to answer all the questions which have been put to me. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) did not offer his services as a heating agency to the Office of Works at an earlier date. Then we might have used them in substitution for imported coal for the heating of the revenue buildings. The first question asked was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who asked a question in regard to contracts. The yearly contracts actually in existence expired in June, 1926, and up to that moment we had not purchased any imported coal at all. We did not purchase any coal until September. That was a yearly contract. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) asked me a question in connection with the purchase of the coal. He wanted to know whether we bought this coat entirely on our own without any consultation with other Departments. As a matter of fact, every purchase of coal we
made was in full conjunction with the Ministry of Mines.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but that was not the object of my question. Does the Office of Works, with the knowledge of the Mines Department, go into the market and does the Admiralty go to work separately? Are all these Departments working separately, or are not they co-ordinated and is not the buying done by one Department?

Captain HACKING: I cannot answer, of course, for the Admiralty, but so far as the Office of Works is concerned we do purchase on our own, but on this occasion we purchased in conjunction with the Mines Department. I do not, of course, know what the stocks of the Admiralty were and I have no method at this moment of finding out whether we could have obtained any coal from them, but my own opinion is that the Navy were just as anxious to preserve their stock as we were to preserve ours. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether middlemen came into these transactions. The answer is in the negative; there were no middlemen's profits at all.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: From whom did you buy it?

Captain HACKING: We bought through the Coal Exchange in London.

Mr. JONES: And the middlemen are not there!

Captain HACKING: There were no middlemen's profits in the way that we ordinarily mean by that; there was only the usual commission on the Coal Exchange. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) asked why we did not complete the buildings. He was talking, I think, about the' anticipated saving under the other sub-heads. The reason why we did not complete the buildings was that we could not get the materials with which to complete them, owing to the coal stoppage, which prevented those materials from being manufactured. Immediately we could get the materials we required, we at once went on with the building, and I may say that there was no permanent saving —the saving was only effected in this particular financial year. Mount
Pleasant, to which I think the hon. Member referred, is included. There was a stoppage there, but I understand now that the work is being continued. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked where the coal was purchased from. It was purchased from various countries—from Germany, Belgium, Silesia, and Czechoslovakia. I do not know of any other country from which we purchased coal, but I know that we purchased from those countries.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Was there none from America?

Captain HACKING: I do not think we bought any from America. The hon. Member for the Don Valley also asked how this coal was bought? I have already answered that question by saying that it was bought on the Coal Exchange. It was actually landed at various ports in this country—London, Hull, Newcastle, Grangemouth, Manchester, Cardiff, Newport, Plymouth. It was landed at the ports nearest to the places at which the coal would be actually consumed, in order to save payment for transport as far as possible.

Mr. BATEY: Scotch coal had to be taken by rail.

Captain HACKING: The coal, certainly, had to be transported in some way. For example, the ships in which this coal came over could not get up to Birmingham, and we had to have other means of transport after landing it at the port. I was also asked as to prices. I have told the Committee that we had to pay twice as much for imported coal as for coal that we bought in this country. The average pre-stoppage price was 38s. per ton in cellars, and the price that we had to pay during the stoppage was, approximately, 80s. per ton in cellars. I may be told that if you multiply 70,000 tons—which was the quantity we had to buy—by an increase of £2 per ton, you do not get as a result the amount of £69,000 for which we are asking. There is a very easy answer to that. The Estimate was not arrived at by a simple multiplication of tonnage and average price. It never can be. If it were as simple as that, I could be in sole charge of the Estimates of the Office of Works, but it is not so simple as it
sounds. It is rather the result of a complete and detailed survey of the requirements of the various districts into which the country is divided for fuel purposes, and to assume that one could just multiply the tonnage by the average increase in price, and thus get at the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, is erroneous.
With regard to the actual price that we paid, the average was approximately 80s. per ton. Certain Members of the House have stated that they thought we had paid a very excessive price. It may be excessive in normal times, but I do not think the Committee can consider that it was excessive in the circumstances which existed at the moment, for I am told that retailers charged 112s. a ton during the same period. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is shear robbery!"] I am afraid it is not for me to judge, but the retailers' price was 112s. I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Colonel Woodcock) about candles, but I think that question was quite conclusively answered by you, Mr. Hope, when you pointed out that no candles at all were accounted for in this Estimate. The hon. Member for East Bristol asked whether there was a complete stoppage of work on buildings. No, it was not necessarily a complete stoppage of work. We worked as much as ever we could until we were held up. We were held up for girders, which prevented any work being done, and, therefore, we had to stop, but whenever it was possible to put the men on other work we did so, and in almost every case now, I believe, the work is being resumed. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) asked what was the nature of the 5,000,000 tons. I am very sorry if I said "5,000,000 tons." I may have done so, but if I did it was a slip; what I intended to say was that 5,000 tons was the stock of coal. I am not sure if I did say "5,000,000," but if I did I apologise.

Mr. PALING: On what date was that?

Captain HACKING: At the beginning of the dispute, in May. I have already answered the hon. Member's query in connection with prices. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) also asked about the average price paid
for the coal, and I have answered that. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked how much coal was bought after the 1st December. We entered into no contracts after the 1st December, and the last cargo on existing contracts was cleared on the 23rd December. I have already told the Committee where the coal was bought and how it was landed, about which the hon. Member also asked. He asked, too, what was our experience of the coal. The Committee knows that there is nothing so good as British coal, and our experience was not a happy one. We only hope we shall never have to repeat it. I think I have answered all the questions that have been put to me. I hope I have been frank and honest with the Committee, and that they will now let me have this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. PALING: May I just press one point? I With regard to the 38s. which was the pre-stoppage price in cellars, I would like to ask what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by that. Do I understand that the Government, who place huge contracts for coal—I think a figure of 300,000 tons was mentioned—are paying 38s. per ton delivered? In view of the fact, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), that coal was sold at the pithead in railway trucks before the stoppage at from 16s. 6d. to 18s. per ton, it appears to me that, when the Government are buying in huge quantities like this, 38s. per ton delivered is a very excessive price. May I ask whether that is what the Government actually paid for it, and how they buy it—whether they buy direct from the agents of the colliery companies, or through middlemen?

Captain HACKING: We purchase direct from the coal pits and, of course, carriage has to be added to the purchase price. I am assured that the average pre-stoppage price delivered in the cellar works out at 38s.

Mr. TAYLOR: Could we have some further explanation about the figure of 80s.? According to some figures which were given in the House not very long ago by the President of the Board of Trade in reply to a question, the average price of imported coal bought under the credit of £3,000,000 which was granted in a Supplementary Estimate of the
Board of Trade for the purpose of importing coal, or dealing in coal, shows a very great discrepancy. If my memory serves me correctly, that price was something between 40s. and 45s. a ton as imported at the ports in this country. I should like to know whether this coal has been bought from the Government, or from the agencies of the Government, under that credit of the Board of Trade, or whether it has been bought in the open market? If it has been bought from the Government Department, there must be some explanation of the tremendous difference between 45s. and 80s. a, ton, even making the most liberal allowance for cartage and so on, and it seems to me that we ought to have a much fuller explanation than we have yet had of what is embodied in the 80s.

Captain HACKING: I am glad to give as fully as possible the information that the hon. Members wants. I said that the average price was 80s., but that is not quite an average. The price of the imported coal, c.i.f. at English ports, varied from 55s. to 60s. a ton. That is at the port.

Mr. TAYLOR: That is the general average price ruling, but I am talking about the price paid by the Board of Trade under their credit of £3,000,000.

Captain HACKING: Of course, I do not know anything about the Board of Trade; I do not know how they purchased their coal. I have already explained that we purchased this coal on our own account in conjunction with the Mines Department, and we actually paid from 55s. to 60s. a ton c.i.f. at English ports. The average cost per ton for unloading, freight, cartage and delivery into cellars, was put down at from 15s. to 20s. per ton. That is how I get a maximum of 80s. per ton in cellars. Is that the information that the hon. Member wants?

Mr. TAYLOR: No, Sir. The point I want to make clear is this: Did the Office of Works, as a Government Department, draw these supplies of coal from the scheme under which the Board of Trade imported coal into this country by means of Government credits, or did they buy their coal in the open market at the open market price? If so, it seems to me that the position really with regard to this Estimate is that the Government
were importing coal at a very much lower figure than the open market price, whereas this Department was paying the open market price at a time when the Government was actually importing at shillings below the market rate.

Captain HACKING: That, of course, is only a matter of bookkeeping. I do not know, but if by any chance the other Government Departments purchased coal and made a profit on it, while we happened to have paid rather more for it, it is only a question of bookkeeping between the various Departments. As far as the Treasury is concerned, it would be all right on balance.

Mr. MOSLEY: I had hoped that the explanations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be so adequate that we could pass from this Vote, as, of course, it is the first function of an Opposition to expedite Government business. I must confess, however, that his explanation has not entirely resolved some of the questions which have been addressed to him. He now informs us that his Department paid 60s. a ton for this coal at English ports, but I understood him previously to say that he paid 80s. a ton for it at the Coal Exchange in London.

Captain HACKING: No, I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. What I said, or intended to say, at any rate, was that this coal cost 80s. a ton in cellars. I think that is what I said.

Mr. MOSLEY: That would be the second explanation which we have just heard. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say previously that he had paid 80s. a ton for it in London. I now understand him to say that his Department bought the coal at the ports at 60s. per ton, and that the cost of freight, etc., came roughly to the extra 20s. per ton. Do I correctly apprehend him?

Captain HACKING: Yes. The hon. Member, of course, is not trying to make the best of what I have said, and he is not trying to make the best of what the Department has done. I can quote him other prices. I said the maximum was 60s. c.i.f., and the maximum carriage 20s., so that the maximum price in the
cellar was actually 80s., but I said that that was not quite the average; the average was a litle lower than that.

Mr. MOSLEY: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I merely want to be perfectly clear as to the exact figures of this transaction. He informed us that there were no middlemen profits of any kind. By that, presumably, he means that he eliminated the profits of the English middlemen. That is not the real complaint. What about the profits of the foreign middlemen? That is a very serious question. Surely, when the Government in these circumstances is taking steps to import coal from abroad, they are not going to pay more than is necessary in profits to the international ring which at that time was trying to hold us up. Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether he took any action of any kind to break the ring abroad, which wan profiting from the condition of this country to sell us coal at exorbitant prices?
He has not told us anything about the shipping freights. What was the cost of shipping this coal to this country? Were those freights normal or were they abnormal? He did not answer the question as to whether or not British ships brought the coal to this country. That was one of the many questions addressed to him in the course of this Debate which he has either failed to answer or has refrained from answering. Before we pass from this subject we certainly ought to know what ships brought the coal to this country, and whether the freights were normal or whether the shipping ring joined the coal ring in profiting at the expense of the country's troubles and the incompetence, possibly, of our measures for the importation of this coal.
If someone is making profits, it is better that they should be English middlemen who, at least, we can tax. We can get something back from them in taxation. It is better, therefore, that they should be English middlemen than foreign middlemen The hon. and gallant Member and his Department took these elaborate precautions to knock out the English middlemen, still leaving us completely exposed to the assaults of the foreign middlemen. If the hon. Member bad taken the sensible course and had bought on the foreign market and im-
ported directly under the auspices of the State to this country he would, of course, have come into conflict with some of his pet prejudices. He might have illustrated, inadvertently, that the State was capable of buying coal or any other commodity in the markets of the world, importing it to this country at a very considerable saving, and from that illustration would have arisen other arguments for the bulk purchase of commodities abroad for importation to this country under the direct auspices of the State.
Even when the Government were confronted by this great national menace, so strong were their prejudices, so bound were they by political considerations, that they could not do the very thing which the Government did in the late War, namely, to buy in the markets of the world and import direct to this country. We found in the Great War that the State undertook such operations with considerable success in the sphere of wool, wheat and of meat—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been long enough a member of this House to know the impropriety of this extension of the argument.

Mr. MOSLEY: I bow at once to your ruling. I was merely treating that matter by way of illustration to show that had a different course been adopted in the handling of tins coal we might, from our experience, know that a considerable economy could have been effected. But the hon. and gallant Member waits until the coal has been delivered to the ports in this country, he waits until the shipping ring have demanded their exorbitant price, he waits until the international ring which combines against us in our time of difficulty has taken the maximum profits, and then he says, with triumph, that it is a brilliant stroke of business for his Department. He says: "I have stopped any more middlemen in this country taking still further profits from the nation in that very difficult situation." It is impossible to hear the hon. and gallant Member's explanation and to believe that this business has been conducted in the most efficient manner that was possible.
There are other factors in this Estimate which have not yet received comment. One interesting point that arises is the Government's miscalculation
as to the duration of the strike. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Lock-out!"] I beg pardon. The Government miscalculated the duration of the lock-out. There were two events, the general strike and the lock-out. Personally, I should argue that they were both lock-outs. [Laughter.] At any rate, I should argue that they both arose from the situation of the lock-out. However, in the confusion of terms which arise from the description of these two events we are liable to fall into error. The Government believe that in laying in a stock of 5,000 tons of coal they would see the whole business through. They thought that 5,000 tons of coal, for the purpose of Government Departments at any rate, was sufficient to break the resistance of the miners. They made a very serious miscalculation in regard to that great trade union. Surely, from that fact arises a consideration pregnant with warning for the future, that if they have so miscalculated the resistance of one union, they may very well during the present Session miscalculate the resistence of the whole of organised labour in this country.

The CHAIRMAN: That might have been in order yesterday, but not to-day.

Mr. MOSLEY: I will pass from that very interesting consideration, and express the hope that the Government may learn from their blunders of the past to conduct themselves in a more sensible manner in the future. I admit that, in holding that view, even the possibility of that view, I am an optimist. At the same time, may we not ask the Government to reflect how very seriously they miscalculated the duration of the coal stoppage, as is evidenced from the Estimate which we have now under consideration? If we were really to go to the root of this matter and to consider the reasons for this Estimate, we should have to consider every factor which was responsible for the prolongation of the coal stoppage, and I realise that that would not be within the scope of this Estimate. We should have to ask the Home Secretary to attend this Debate and to explain his action. Possibly, we should have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the "British Gazette." It is impossible within the narrow limits of the rules governing Supplementary Estimates really to go to
the heart of this matter and to bring home to the Government the responsibility which I believe to be theirs. But at such a time when the Government are, one hopes, deriving some warning from this Estimate, we may well seize the opportunity to bring home to them the bill which they now have to foot for the

blunders of the past and to repudiate any responsibility of any kind for that policy from these benches.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 250.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[5.41 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (penistone)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, At. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Ht. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Oswald
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)



Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burman, J. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Albery, Irving James
Berry, Sir George
Cadogar, Major Hon. Edward


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bethel, A.
Carver, Major W. H.


Alexander Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W Derby)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Apsley, Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Christie. J. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Viscountess
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Briggs, J. Harold
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Atkinson, C.
Briscoe, Richard George
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cooper, A. Duff


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope, Major William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Gerald S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jacob, A E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Edwards, J, Hugh (Accrington)
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Bellst)


England, Colonel A.
Looker, Herbert William
Skelton, A. N.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, L.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smithers, Waldron


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fielden, E. B.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Forrest, W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Han. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gates, Percy
Merriman, F. S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Grace, John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tinne, J. A.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Grotrian, H, Brent
Mall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waddington, R.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harland, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Pennefather, Sir John
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lard Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Dr. T.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Plicher, G.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Holland, Sir Arthur
Raine, W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Withers, John James


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wragg, Herbert


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.



Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Huntingfield, Lord
Rye, F. G.
Captain Bowyer.


Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 127.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[5.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atholl, Duchess of
Betterton, Henry B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Atkinson, C.
Birchall, Major J, Dearman


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Albery, Irving James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Alexander, Sir Wm., (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Briggs, J. Harold


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Briscoe, Richard George


Apsley, Lord
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brittain, Sir Harry


Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Berry, Sir George
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Astor, Viscountess
Bethel, A.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Burman, J. B.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Couper, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Skelton, A. N.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lumley, L. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


England, Colonel A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Fairfax, Capain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Templeton, W. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Margesson, Captain D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, F. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tinne, J. A.


Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Waddington, R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gates, Percy
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts, Dr. T.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wells, S. R.


Grace, John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Grenfell, Edward, C. (City of London)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Philipson, Mabel
Wolmer, Viscount


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.
Womersley, W. J.


Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Harland, A.
Raine, W.
Wragg, Herbert


Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Young. Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hawke, John Anthony
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Keneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.
Capt. Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Crawfurd H. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Ammon, Charles George
Buxton, Rt. Hon, Noel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Baker, Walter
Cape, Thomas
Day, Colonel Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Charleton, H. C.
Dennison, R.


Batey, Joseph
Clowes, S.
Duncan, C.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Dunnico, H.


Briant, Frank
Compton, Joseph
Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Broad, F. A.
Connolly, M.
Fenby, T. D.


Bromfield, William
Cove, W. G.
Gardner, J. P.


Bromley, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gibbins, Joseph




Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stamford, T. W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


Greenall, T,
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A.


Groves, T.
Morris, R. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Harney, E. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Townend, A. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W,
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Rose, Frank H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wright, W.


Lawrence, Susan
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


Lunn, William
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,473, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient, Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery.

6.0 P.M.

Captain HACKING: I am asking the Committee for a sum of money reference to which will be found under two subheadings on page 5 of the Supplementary Estimates. The first of those sub-headings is "B.B.—Repayment of Advances under the Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900." It may be the wish of the Committee to hear exactly the position with regard to the money under that sub-head. The Land Transfer Act, 1897, gave power to require the registration of title on the sale of land. The fees for the registration had, by the Act, to cover all expenses in the working of the Act. Under the Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900, with which we are directly concerned here, provision is made for new buildings for the Land Registry Offices. One Clause of that Act enabled the Treasury to borrow the amount which would be required by the Office of Works for the buildings. The
buildings, I should say in passing, are in Lincolns Inn Fields. The Office of Works claimed the requisite amount from the Treasury, who borrowed it from the National Debt Commissioners. The sum of money actually required for the buildings was £242,676. That amount of money was borrowed and was spent, and it was arranged that the money should he repayable by annuities of £11,095, such annuities to terminate in the year 1940. It is always difficult to estimate whether fees will exactly cover expenses, and I should repeat that under the Act of 1897 it was laid down that the fees for registration were to cover all expenses which would include the expenses of this annuity. As I say, it is always difficult to estimate whether fees will exactly cover expenditure.
It is quite clear that fees depend upon the number of transfers made in a particular 12 months, and to some extent upon other matters, and experience has shown us that sometimes there is an excess of fees over expenditure, and sometimes we find there is an excess of expenditure over fees. But in recent years, mainly due to very rigid economy, the fees have actually exceeded the cost of registry and the accumulation of this excess from 1898 to 1926 amounted to £115,216, as is shown in the explanation on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate. That accumulation of excess fees went
towards extinguishing the liability, and this sum of £22,473 will actually extinguish the liability altogether, and there will be no further annuities. Under this Sub-head, therefore, I am not really asking for money, but really asking for permission to pay a debt by a lump sum instead of allowing future Estimates to bear the burden of this annuity, which, of course, has been diminishing as we have been able to pay back some of the capital. That principle I know will meet with the approval of the Committee, and I do not think I need dwell further on that Sub-head.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it now proposed to reduce the fees for these transfers so as to enable the private person to exercise economy also?

Captain HACKING: I cannot make any statement with regard to the reduction of fees. That is not in my. Department, but now that the hon. and gallant Member knows the position he will be entitled to put a question to the Department concerned in regard to fees. It is not within my power to answer his question.

Mr. W. BAKER: Do I understand that the annuities would normally terminate in 1940?

Captain HACKING: Yes, but we have been able to pay back out of the excess fees a sum of £115,000, thus greatly reducing the liability, and with this final 222,473 there will be no further annuities at all and the buildings will be completely free of debt. With regard to Sub-head I, which refers to fuel, light and household articles, I have little to add to what I told the Committee on the last Vote. I should say that this sum is not entirely in regard to fuel, although it mostly relates to fuel. The original estimate for fuel was £174,700, and the revised estimate is £250,900, making a difference of £76,200 in respect of fuel purchased during the period of the coal stoppage. So far as lighting is concerned, the original estimate was £101,300 and the revised estimate is £86,000. We have a saving there on the original estimate of £15,300. In regard to household articles, the original estimate was £17,710 'and the revised estimate is £19,810 or an increase of £2,100. Striking a balance on all these
three expenditures, we get a net sum required of £63,000. In regard to fuel, exactly the same arguments apply as those which were used in reference to the last Vote. The requirement is due to the extra cost of fuel, such as coal and coke, during the coal stoppage. In regard to the item for lighting, the saving of £15,300 shows a praiseworthy economy and possibly some slight inaccuracy in estimating. We had great difficulty in estimating the item for household articles for this 12 months because, for the first time, we have taken under our wing the prison services, and in undertaking new services of that kind it will be acknowledged that there is always a difficulty in estimating.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if there is any further liability in regard to taking foreign coal?

Captain HACKING: Existing now?

Mr. RICHARDS'ON: Yes.

Captain HACKING: No, that is all wiped out. I explained that on the last Vote. So far as the anticipated savings on other sub-heads are concerned they amount to a total saving of £43,000. These savings are available on two subheads, namely, Maintenance and Rent. In regard to maintenance, there is a saving of £35,000 due, as before, to the stoppage in the coalfields reducing the output of steel and other building material which we could have used if they had been available. The saving under the subhead of Rents, is £8,000, and is due to a reduction in the number of hired buildings. Buildings have been surrendered which we thought we would have had to retain for a longer period than has proved to be the ease. These include Nos. 66 and 68, Victoria Street, which accommodated the staffs of the Board of Control and sections of the War Office, the Board of Trade, the Mercantile Marine and the Admiralty. These are now going back to their own buildings, and there is a saving of £3,100 owing to surrendering the building sooner than we anticipated. The date of surrender was 26th December, 1926. Then there is Cecil Chambers which accommodated the Pensions Appeal staffs and was surrendered on 12th August, 1926, at a saving of £1,800; and in connection with Ministry of Pensions accommodation throughout the country there has been a saving of
£3,100. The sum then for which I am asking, required for Class I, Vote 10—including, I repeat, the repayment of advances under the Land Registry Act, which is really not a charge—is only £42,473, which is merely 2.6 per cent. of the original Estimate. Again, I have taken the Committee into my confidence and given them the full details as far as I know them, and I hope they will deal with me as leniently as they did on the last occasion.

Mr. MARCH: I desire to move that the Vote be reduced by £100 in order to elicit, if possible, further information respecting the coal distribution.
I was not in the House when the question was raised on the previous Vote, and I only heard part of the Government explanation, but I think we should have some further information with regard to the transport of coal. I understand that the price of the coal purchased at the ports averaged 60s. and the cost of distribution averaged another 20s. That made 80s. for the coal as distributed to the cellars. Prior to the dispute I understand 38s. was the average price for coal delivered to London cellars. Now it has gone to 80s. Can the Minister tell us how the additional cost of transport is distributed? Is it distributed proportionately, a certain sum per ton going to the railway company and then a certain sum per ton being charged for delivery from the depots? There seems to be a big margin and one would be glad to know where it is going.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I understand these questions were asked on the preceding Vote regarding the distribution of coal. We cannot have a second discussion on the same subject on this Vote.

Mr. MARCH: I think I have already expressed my regret that I was not in my place when the first Vote was taken. Unfortunately, I had to go to get some tea, as I have had nothing since breakfast. [Laughter.] I know lots of people on the other side laugh, but we shall see those Benches opposite empty about eight o'clock, and hon. Members will then he rushing for something. I did not know that this particular matter had been mentioned, but I hope the Under-Secretary will give me some satisfaction in connection with my question.

Mr. HARRIS: I rise to deal not so much with the coal question as with Subhead BB. I think the Under-Secretary was far too modest in his references to that particular matter. He was almost apologetic. As a matter of fact the appearance of this figure on the Estimate is misleading, both to the Committee and to the country because the impression is created that there is an extra charge on the taxpayer of some £22,000 in respect of the Land Registry. As a matter of fact, exactly the contrary is the case because here is one of the rare Departments of the Government in which a profit has been earned by good management and efficiency. Yet the Under-Secretary instead of coming down as one would expect him to come here with his head in the air, proclaiming that a Government Department bas actually done better than was anticipated, comes to the House in a most apologetic manner. It is a very remarkable result. For a great number of years this Department showed a deficit, but during the last three or four years, I suppose by the efficient organisation and administration of the Department, you have had a large surplus, in spite of the fact—I would call to the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—that these fees have been reduced and they have had to anticipate the rebate allowed for the paying off of the debt on the building from 1940 to 1927. That is a very remarkable result of efficient and good organisation. I know that there are people who are very opposed to land registration and who regard it as a wicked kind of Socialism and as likely to be a very costly experiment, but so well has this work been done that they are able to show this very good result and to bring this very nice little surplus into the pockets, not, it is true, of the community as a whole, but really into the pockets of the solicitors, who are a privileged class.
I would like to point out that this is the one Department since 1914 that has been able to reduce its fees, in spite of increased cost of paper, printing, wages, and so on. I think this ought to be given publicity, because some of us want this system of land registration to be spread all over the country. There is great opposition to that, but I think that instead of this figure appearing in a back
page mixed up with a lot of estimates of increased charge on the Exchequer, it ought to have appeared in a memorandum of its own, emblazoned with large gold letters, as the one case of good business from this Government. We are not allowed by law to hand over the money to the Exchequer, and the only way to get it by law was by paying off the loan on the land and buildings before the date when it was due. I assume that, having done that, they will be able still further to reduce their fees.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must echo what the hon. Member has just said about the reduction of fees, but I do not agree with him in congratulating the Government on the working of this Department. The Under-Secretary for Home Affairs, whom I thank for his very lucid and full explanation and for the very nice way in which he did it, told us that this was a real case of economy, but somebody has to pay these fees, and the fact is that for years too high fees have been charged for the registration of land. I am unable to share the wish that this should be extended all over the country, and I do not think this is Government economy so much as an example of overcharging for the services of people to whom the unfortunate vendors and purchasers of land have to go because they have a monopoly. By law these fees have to be paid, and there is no escape, and it is easy, by adjusting the scale of fees, by differentiating, I mean, to show any kind of profit you like. I wish to press this question about the future fees. I think we ought to have some guarantee that this is not going to be a new mulch cow for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have seen the example of the Road Fund raided for a certain purpose, and—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not in order in referring to that upon this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not see why the present annuity, at the rate of £1,985, should not be continued for the full 14 years, which would make a total of £27,790.

Captain HACKING: There is no further charge at all.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why should not those annuities of £1,900 have gone off Now we are using £22,000 to pay them off in one lump sum. However, I wish to point out that unless we get some guarantee that the future services will be wiped out, this will be a means of taxing a class of subjects in a way that has not been authorised by Parliament. That is my point, and I think we might have had some assurances on that point. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Excheque[...] is not here, and I suggest that we should get his views on the subject. The other point I want to raise is with reference to the savings. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that he had made a saving of £43,000 on rents and maintenance. With regard to rents, the explanation was satisfactory and complete, but with regard to maintenance, he refers to the main Estimates, to the maintenance subheads, of which I see there are three. There is, first, the maintenance and repairs of public offices, under subhead C, then maintenance and repairs of historic buildings, and under subhead E, maintenance and repairs of ancient monuments. We have had no indication of how the savings have been effected. The slim is substantial. and I wish to know whether the saving has been effected by not keeping up the repairs of public offices, which may be a very false economy, or whether it has been effected in the necessary repairs to historic buildings not having been carried out, which may be an irreparable disaster. I would much rather see this Government fall into oblivion for ever than see one of our historic monuments or buildings suffer for lack of a little necessary expenditure.
I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has a large Department to help administer, and I do not expect him to be able to answer straight off with details, but when we see a saving of this substantial sum. I think we ought to know how it has been brought about. I do not think it is fair to say we could not get the material because of the coal Stoppage. Other building went on all through the coal stoppage. I never heard of buildings being held up where private enterprise was concerned. During the coal stoppage I went almost every day along Piccadilly, and there I saw wonderful buildings going up. They did not
seem to be held up in any way by the stoppage, and I think it is a curious reason for the Government to bring forward that they allowed public monuments to fall into disrepair, or ancient monuments to be lest to the nation, or public offices not properly looked after because there was a coal stoppage. Unless the further explanation is satisfactory, I shall ask the Committee to vote for a reduction of this Vote.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether we were right in understanding from him that the provision by which the excess fees arc devoted towards the cancellation of the annuities is a statutory provision?

Captain HACKING: It is a statutory provision. I have not the Statute in front of me, but the annuity was statutory, I think. Perhaps I had better have notice of the question, but it is really immaterial to this particular Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is statutory.

Mr. YOUNG: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Vote. That is what understood from his preliminary observations—that it was a statutory provision. That gives rise to the observation that it is a clear, though small, instance of the essential vice of specific statutory sinking funds, because you have here two perfectly clear entries on capital account. You have outstanding advances, and you have the annuities to repay those advances. That is on capital account. On the other hand, you have two perfectly clear entries on revenue account. You have the excess fees got in, and you have the additional cost for fuel all over the offices. It would obviously be reasonable to set off your two revenue items one against the other, and bring these excess fees against the additional cost of fuel, and leave the capital account as it stood. The direct evil of the present course, which, we recognise, is enforced by Statute, is that it results in the total of the Estimates for the year being artificially swollen by the amount of £23,000, which, of course, is a had thing, as it makes things look worse than they really are, and that is bad for credit. The instance is worth noting. It is, as I have said, a single instance.
small but clear, of a constant vice in some of our minor financial provisions.

Mr. SCURR: I cannot altogether agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in his criticism of the Government in regard to the action they have taken under the Land Registry. I consider that this Department is exceedingly well administered, and I think I am right in saying that under the Act it is absolutely impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raid it. As a result of the clearing of these annuities and the paying down of this lump sum, it will be necessary in future for the fees for this service to be reduced, which will be a great advantage to those who have to make use of the service. I consider it in many ways a practical example or the value of Socialism in practice, for it has been a profit to the State and again to the various individuals. which is all that Socialism claims to be able to do. The point I want to make is, that I really do consider the way this is presented to the House is, if I may say so, rather calculated to deceive. If we look at Item I, we have "Fuel, Light and Household Articles," showing an additional sum of £03,000 required. That, of course, is absolutely incorrect. Seine of us were under the impression that it related entirely to the extra cost of fuel, which, it is alleged, was caused by the recent stoppage, but when the Minister rises in his place, he tells us somewhat differently. He tells us that the real amount expended on fuel was £10,000 more than the Estimate, or £76,000, and then he goes on to say that there has been a saving on light, approximately, of £15,000 and a loss on household articles of £2,100. No one could possibly gather that information from this Estimate, and I do submit it is absolutely bad accountancy. There is not a business concern in the City of London or anywhere else which would dare to present its accounts in that particular way.
We ought to have had in the Estimate the information that there has been a saving of £15,000 on light. How has that money been saved? Has it been saved by reason of the fact that during the coal stoppage offices were closed down at certain hours, and, therefore, so much light was not used; or was it due to the reduction in the cost of service of elec-
tric light, or perhaps some better method of lighting? In regard to the sum spent on coal, I say it is really calculated to deceive the Committee when the expenditure has been £76,000, and that item is not shown. That would be denounced by any accountant in regard to business enterprise in much harsher terms than I have used. We find that on this Supplementary Estimate not much more than one-third or a little over one-third of it is due to the emergency arising out of the coal dispute. The rest of it is due either to bad estimating or to some other reasons with which we are not acquainted.
I think this growing practice of Supplementary Estimates is a bad system all the way through. Attention has been called to it on more than one occasion by much' more important Members of this House than myself, but I also want to make this protest. The time ought to come when there should not be any Supplementary Estimates unless there is some very grave and serious emergency. Further than that, I think the form in which they are presented is calculated to deceive, and I hope, on future occasions, the proper information will be available to every Member of this House.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: There is another point to which, I think, it is only right to call attention on this Estimate, and that is the very large excess of fees for the cost of the Land Registry. Over and over again in this House it has been contended that the charging of fees for the purpose of discharging the expense of Government offices should not result in a large surplus. If it does, it is a form of taxation which is contrary to all the traditions of this House and al the rules of sound finance. Therefore, I hope that steps will now be taken to see that the fees are so reduced as not to result in a large windfall to the Exchequer from money which was sanctioned by Parliament to the extent of meeting expenses. I do not know whether this is exactly the time to discuss the matter of the Land Registry proceedings generally, but I think it would be in order, perhaps, to say, as one who has had a good deal of experience of the working of the Land Registry, that the fees which are charged by the Registry are far higher than they ought to be, and higher than is commensurate with the
fees paid for work which has to be done by solicitors at the Registry. But the immediate point is that the fees charged by Government Departments should be reduced, so that they do not result in a considerable taxation of a certain body of people in the form of charges for work done, when it is really taxation resulting in money coming into the Exchequer.

Mr. PALING: I want to support the Amendment for the reduction of this Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite clear whether a reduction was moved or not.

Mr. MARCH: Yes, I made it quite clear that I was moving to reduce the Vote by £100.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I regret I did not hear it. If the hon. Member will now move a reduction, I will put it.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Mr. PALING: In supporting the reduction, I want to admit that on the last Estimate, particularly with regard to the question of the increased price of coal, the hon. and gallant Member opposite gave us all the information for which we asked, or as much as he could,, and I do not intend to cover the same ground. But there is still some other information for which I wish to ask, and I am pretty sure, if he can give it, he will. I remember when one of the Ministers asked for a Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,00 in order to allow the Government to purchase foreign coal, Members on these benches were very anxious to know al-. about it, but the answer we got from the Minister responsible was that in the interest of the public it was necessary to keep this business secret, and we were told that the time to get the information would be when these Estimates came up for consideration. Therefore, I would like to ask now what was the price paid for this coal in the foreign contracts. It, probably, will have I been a varying price; probably it will have gone up as the days, weeks and months went on, but if the hon. Gentleman can give us a fair average of the price, it will meet the question I am asking. Will he also give the pre-stoppage price per ton of coal in the country where it was bought?
Something was said by an hon. Member this afternoon to the effect that people interested in the shipment of coal took advantage of the necessity of the nation during the stoppage, and increased the price. I want to ask whether that was so, or not. The third question I would ask is this: What was the average price of foreign coal in this country before the stoppage occurred? I believe I am right in assuming that there was a small amount of coal actually imported into this country even before the coal stoppage. Therefore, it ought to be easy to get what was the pre-stoppage cost of coal used in this country. Such information will enable us to make comparisons, and to see whether the argument put forward by the Minister, that they wanted to keep this business secret, so as to buy in those countries before they knew anything about it, was a justification for refusing that information at that moment. The last point I would put is this: I believe the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) said the stoppage had taught us a few things, one of which was economy in the use of coal and that he hoped this economy would go on, and that the stoppage might prove to have been a really good thing, because we would be able to practise economy in the future owing to our experience, which we had not had in the past. Again, I may be wrong, hut I understood the hon. and gallant Member opposite to indicate assent when that statement was made.

Captain HACKING: I did not.

Mr. PALING: Then I withdraw it. I would ask whether we on these benches shall be right in assuming that the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge will be an added incentive to the Government to do even worse next time than they did the last time?

Commander WILLIAMS: If I may go back to the rather tamer matter of the Land Registry, there are one or two points on which I should like some information. The Minister will see that under the heading "B.B." he has to discharge the salaries and other expenses of the Land Registry Office. Can he give us details of those expenses? I believe land registration is compulsory so far as London is concerned—I think I am right
—and probably outside London. There must be some advantage in it, for apparently registration is going on out- side. Is any effort being made by the Minister to extend the registration of land outside London? I ask this because it is almost impossible, in this House or anywhere else, to ascertain the number of people who actually own land at the present time, and from that point of view the Land Registry might be of some value.
The Minister rather prided himself on the savings made in this Department, but he did not make it clear to the Committee whether the savings were owing to building operations being deferred or whether they were actual savings upon building work which it will not be necessary to undertake at all. Will this expenditure which has been saved this year come on next year, or is it wiped out for all time? The net saving in this Department, which has an expenditure of over 21,500,000, is extraordinarily small, and many hon. Members feel that in public building there is a field where the Government could practise very great economy. We have had very little saving in this Department this year, and I, and I think a good many more Members of our party, hope there will be a greater saving next year. Another point, of minor interest, which I wish to put to him is whether he can tell us why Brompton Cemetery comes under this Estimate? I have seen it included from time to time before, but I have never had an explanation as to why it comes in here, and why the Government deal with this cemetery apart from other cemeteries.

Mr. W. BAKER: I wish to say a few words regarding the section of the Vote referring to the Land Registry. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) was inclined to compliment the Government, and to rejoice at the excellent way in which this particular piece of machinery had been run, and his congratulations were apparently shared by an hon. Member behind me. I regret to say that I see very little ground for congratulation, although any criticism is not to be directed immediately to the present Government. The cost of the Land Registry building was to be redeemed in 40 years, and presumably the fees were fixed on the assumption that 40 years was the period necessary to
liquidate the cost of the building and the land on which it stands. Owing to the remarkable shortage of houses, a large number of poor men and women have been forced to purchase the houses in which they live, and in addition to the heavy burdens they have had to bear in the way of mortgage interest they have had super-imposed an excessive charge for land registry fees. The result of these numerous transactions has been that the cost of the building has been liquidated in 13 years less than the expected time. It is too late to recompense the people who have been compelled to pay fees in excess of what would have been necessary, but now that the cost of the building has been liquidated the fees ought to come down.

Mr. GILLETT: One matter which has been specially in the minds of the Public Accounts Committee is the amount of over-estimating that goes on. As I understand it, the original estimate for lighting was £101,000 and that has now been reduced to £86,000, a saving of 15,000. I would like to ask how it is that the original estimate was so much in excess of the final figure? Speaking from memory, the average excess in the case of over-estimates is 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., whereas this figure is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 or 15 per cent. too high. The Minister has also told us there have been savings in the rent of buildings. How is it that the time at which those buildings were to be vacated was not more accurately known when the estimates were being prepared? I should have thought the Department would have been aware of the date when a building was to be given up. Are we to understand that the staff which used to be housed in these different buildings has been dispensed with? And if they have been removed to other places, how is accommodation provided for them there? Shall we find in some other estimate an increase of expenditure for enlarging certain buildings, or is this an actual saving because staffs have been dispensed with and the buildings are no longer required? I should be glad if the Minister would say whether he is quite satisfied with the estimates from the point of view of estimating by the Department. Going back to the question of lighting, we know that the cost of lighting in some
districts has gone up since the General Strike, and one might have hazarded the suggestion that there would have been an increase in the cost of lighting; and in view of that I should like to know whether the Minister is quite satisfied with the Estimates as they were originally presented.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Although the hon. Gentleman was courtesy personified in replying to the Debate on the question of the purchase price of coal, I feel I must return to the same subject, because still more comprehensive explanations are necessary. He told us that, prior to the stoppage, the Government were paying, approximately, 38s. per ton for coal delivered to the cellars, whereas, during the stoppage, the approximate sum paid was £4. We know the Government set apart £3,000,000 for the purpose of purchasing coal from abroad. On one or two occasions—indeed, at Question Time this afternoon—the President of the Board of Trade has said, the Government made a profit on their purchases. He hopes to tell the house about it at a later date, and perhaps he is going to boast of their wonderful performances in the buying and selling of coal. I want to ask who were responsible for buying this coal for the Office of Works? Was there no sort of a Government between the Office of Works and those who were charged by the Government with the responsibility of purchasing coal abroad? If not, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why not. If the Government were purchasing coal from Silesia., or Belgium. or France, and were selling that coal at the ports at a considerably increased price, and making formidable profits, they were actually covering up the tracks of private traders and enabling those private traders to take advantage of the consumers in Britain, industrial and domestic, during the industrial strife. We are entitled to know if the Government agents who purchased coal abroad were permitted to that coal at the ports in Great Britain, and, if that was the case,' why the Office of Works did not purchase from the Government representatives the coal they required, without any profits entering into the transaction.
I can well remember how frequently the question was put to the Secretary for Mines as to why he did not control the
price of coal in the interests of poor consumers, and his invariable reply was that he had no powers to do so. I submit that unless clear and definite reasons are given for the lack of cohesion between the persons responsible for buying abroad on behalf of the Government and those who purchased for the Office of Works that, either consciously or sub-consciously, the Government were more responsible than any other body of people for maintaining the high prices of coal during the dispute. So far from having had no power to control the price of coal, the Government appear, on the face of the things, to have acted as a shield for private importers who were permitted to make higher profits than they could have hoped to obtained during a normal period, because the Government themselves were making a profit. The Minister ought to tell us whether the purchasers at the ports for the Office of Works took any care to see that they were purchasing coal imported by Government agents, and, if not, why that cooperation did not exist, and why they deliberately used their power to enable private importers and private salesmen to make unnecessary profits at the expense of the poorest section of the community.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) made a suggestion to the Committee which filled me with alarm. He suggested that a saving under one of the Sub-heads was due to a reduction on the maintenance of historic buildings and ancient monuments. If that be so, it is a terrible thing that such an ill-considered demand for economy should be made that these irreplaceable ancient buildings and monuments should be imperilled. If the Minister will assure me that the hon. and gallant Member is not rightly informed about that asumption, I will not pursue the argument, as it will have no substance in it.

7.0 p.m.

Captain HACKING: I might answer at once, because the misunderstanding is very largely of my making. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) asked me whether the saving on maintenance came out of all the maintenance Sub-heads on page 71 of the main Estimates. I said that I thought they did. I have since been
informed that there is no saving at all on maintenance and repairs of historic buildings and maintenance and repairs of ancient monuments under those two Subheads. The only saving is under Subhead 3 on page 71 of the main Estimates.

Mr. ROY WILSON: I had not intended to take any part in this Debate, but it seems to me that hon. Members above the Gangway are stressing too much perhaps the high cost of coal by reason of the stoppage and by reason of the fact that the Government bought abroad. The facts seem to me perfectly obvious. Coal supplies in this country were entirely stopped, and the Government were forced to buy abroad in the only markets available to them for supplying coal to the industries of this country. I put this forward in all sincerity to hon. Members above the Gangway, that either our memories in this country are short, or that we arc ignoring the facts of recent history which bear directly on the high cost of coal. It is only a very few years ago since the Ruhr was occupied and the whole of the coal supplies of the Ruhr were dried up with the consequence of a serious shortage of coal on the Continent. What happened 1 Hon. Gentlemen who represent mining constituencies know that there was a tremendous demand for coal from Great Britain. Prices went soaring up so far as the foreign buyer was concerned, with great advantage to the mining industry at home during that time, and great advantage—although I am sorry to think it was only temporary—to the miners themselves. Exactly the same position happened at that time as during the coal stoppage here. I suggest to hon. Members on this side of the House that as this question of the cost of coal the Government runs through many of those Estimates it is just as well we should bear in mind the facts, and profit by an experience which happened in our own history, only the other way round, a few years ago.

Mr. TOWNEND: There is just one point I wish to-submit to the hon. And charge Gentleman in chare of the Estimates, and it bears on the point submitted by the last speaker. He suggests that, abroad, the Government, in the purchase of their coal, might be subjected in some degree to exploitation. Into that branch of the expenditure to which the
Government were committed I do not want to enter. What I am concerned with, and the question which I submit, is in connection with expenditure entered into by the Government at home. Following upon the point submitted by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I want to ask the Under-Secretary this: We have been given to understand that when the coal reached home ports the cost to the Government was, approximately, 60s. per ton. For that, the Government could hardly be responsible. From the home port, whether it was a London dock or any other port, we understand that the price was increased from 60s. to 8.0s., costing a difference for home transport of 20s. per ton. The proportion of the £76,000 deficiency on the question of fuel would, therefore, for transport, alone be Seeing that this is under the supervision and within the control of the Government, how is it that the cost of transport is 60 high? My experience of transport leads me to believe that a very outside figure per ton on coal transported under such conditions should not be more than 10s. per ton, and, with satisfactory supervision and control, and in circumstances over which we had any control at all, I submit, at least, that on the transport of this coal from home port to cellar something approximating £10,000 might have been saved. I would invite the Minister to deal with that part of the transport question, and give an indication where they were at the mercy of some agency engaged in this business.

Mr. TAYLOR: I want to return to the point that I raised on the first Vote, but to seek a little more definite information than we have yet had from the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of this Vote. First of all, I would like to ask him with regard to the £63,000 included in this Estimate for fuel, whether or not he can tell us quite definitely whether his Department received the coal or bought the coal from those Government agencies which were trading with the £3,000,000 voted as a credit by this House for the purpose of importing coal into this country. That point is of some importance, because I think, before these Estimates are passed, the Committee should be absolutely satisfied as to how the difference between the figure at which
the Government bought abroad and the figure which the Office of Works tell us it cost to get the coo 1 into the cellars, arose. On 2nd December last the Secretary for the Mines Department informed the House that approximately 19½ million tons of foreign coal had been imported into Great Britain up to the date since the commencement of the coal dispute, and, of that 19.½, million tons, 21 million tons had been directly imported by the Government under the scheme by which a £3,000,000 credit was provided for the purpose of importing coal, that £3,000,000 being used as a recurring credit for that purpose. He also went on to say that the average f.o.b. price paid for this 2½million tons of coal bought with Government money amounted to 30s. per ton; that is to say, the average price up to the period ending, I take it, 13th December. Those figures of 30s. a ton related to 26,004 tons of coal imported from Germany, and he also gave us figures relating to the importation of coal from Uppecr Silesia as having cost the Government 33s. 6d. per ton. The Upper Silesian coal covered some—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make the Supplementary Estimate an excuse for a discussion of the whole question of the price of coal. There are references in all those Estimates to the additional cost of fuel, and it cannot be made an excuse for a long discussion on the price of coal.

Mr. PALING: Is it not relevant to ask this question in view of the fact that when this question was before the House the Minister refused any information whatever and gave us to understand it was not in the public interest to do so, and that a full opportunity would be given to get the information when the Estimates came up.

Captain HACKING: May I suggest that the quarrel is rot so much between the Office of Works and the hon. Gentleman as between the hon. Gentleman and the Mines Department 1 I think the information desireds information that could be obtained from the Secretary to the Mines Department.

Mr. TAYLOR: With due respect to you, Sir, I should have thought that there
was a definite connection between the Estimates now before us and the arguments I was putting forth. What I was asking the hon. and gallant Member to explain was how it comes about that his Department are placing Estimates before us on the basis of 80s. per ton paid by them for coal delivered in the cellars whereas another Government Department, according to information given in the House on the 2nd December and on the 13th December, was baying foreign coal at an average price which is different.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: On a point of Order. I would like to submit that this matter does not; arise on this Vote. This Department bought no coal at all or imported any coal. It was simply supplied with coal from the appropriate Government Department. They did not import any coal in the sense of importing it themselves, and the other Government Department, the Ministry of Mines, or whatever Department it was, simply debited them with this charge.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not within the Rules of Order, when a Supplementary Estimate has been submitted upon the responsibility of the Minister, who has stated that the cost was £4 per ton, to debate that point when we have information that another Government Department has purchased similar coal at 30s. per ton?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I want to point out that the Department concerned is not responsible for the organisation of the importation of coal and such points cannot be debated on this Vote. Such questions should he debated on the Vote for the Mines Department and not on this Vote.

Mr. TAYLOR: Surely a question as to whether or not this Estimate is a reasonable one depends upon the methods which were adopted to secure a supply of coal for the Department. We have repeatedly put this question, but we have not yet elicited an answer. Our point is, whether this coal was bought by the Department in the open market or whether it was supplied by the President of the Board of Trade, who, I think, is the Minister responsible for the importation of foreign coal by the Government? If that is so, will the Under-Secretary
explain how that 30s. per ton plus seaborne freightage across to Grimsby—

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think questions of that kind clearly show that they are not points that are open for discussion on this Vote. The Under-Secretary could not possibly deal with the question of the cost of the coal, because the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote is in no way responsible.

Mr. TAYLOR: I think I am entitled to press the point that the Committee will require to be satisfied, before this Vote is passed, that the price paid by the Department was the lowest they could obtain under the circumstances, and if there has been any lack of business discretion in the policy of the Department, I think that is a matter of criticism when the Estimates of the Department are before us. We, want to know why those responsible for this Department did not make an arrangement with another Government Department under which they might have received cheaper supplies, and I think we are entitled to ask for a fuller explanation on this point.

Sir G. HOHLER: I see on the Paper that the Supplementary Estimates for 1926 deal with the emergency services for the importation of coal. Surely that is the proper place to discuss these questions which are being raised by the hon. Member opposite?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Board of Trade is responsible for the price and not the Department concerned with this Vote.

Mr. HARDIE: I believe the Secretary for Mines stated that all foreign coal had to be screened and 50 per cent. had to be laid on one side. That means that the Department would require to get two tons of foreign coal in order to obtain one ton of coal fit to be used in this country. That may be the reason for the big increase in the price—namely, that it took two tons of foreign coal to produce one ton of coal fit for consumption. I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of this Vote could explain that point, he would throw a good deal of light upon the questions asked from this side of the House. An hon Member opposite made a reference to the Ruhr, but he did not tell the House when he referred to the fact that Britain came in
for an advantage during the strike in the Ruhr, that we, through our coal merchants, were charging from £10 to £12 a ton for coal to the people who were formerly bur Allies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that point is a very long way indeed from the Vote which is now before us.

Mr. HARDIE: Other hon. Members went that distance, and I thought I should not be out of order in replying to them. We have been told that there has been a saving in light. I want to know was that only a temporary saving, or is it something that will be permanent. Is it merely an emergency saving, or is it due to some maladministration in the past? 1s the light as efficient as it was before, or have they adopted a more efficient light at less cost? We have no information as to whet-her there was any effort made to save in regard to coal. If there was a possibility in saving in regard to light there may have been some possibility of saving in regard to coal. I would like the Under-Secretary to give us some information on these points. It has been said that this extra cost is due to the coal stoppage. If so I think we should be given some relative figures showing what was the increase. We should be supplied with the average figures for the last four or five years, showing the cost of fuel, and if we had been supplied with those figures I feel sure we should have been able to show the relative value of foreign coal as corn pared with British coal.

Mr. BATEY: We have now been discussing the question of Government coal for three and a-half hours, and I think it is rather late for the Minister to run away now and endeavour to push the blame on the Secretary for Mines. Before you came into the Chair, Captain FitzRoy, the Under-Secretary told us that his Department had bought coal with the knowledge of the Secretary for Mines and therefore, he must have taken some responsibility for his Department buying this coal. Having taken that responsibility, I submit that we are entitled to criticise and ask questions, and demand to know where this coal was bought and so forth. This is a big item of £63,000 for foreign coal. We have just passed a Supplementary Estimate for £69,000,
and now we come to this Estimate for £63,000. I remember in December last putting a question to the Secretary for Mines asking whether the Government were losing money on the importation of foreign coal and the Minister, expanding his chest, declared that they were losing no money.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on the Vote we are discussing and the hon. Member is not in order in pursuing that subject.

Mr. PALING: We were told that there would be an opportunity of discussing this question on the Emergency Services. That is an Estimate which has already been passed, and we were not allowed to discuss this point on that Estimate. Therefore, I submit we ought to have that opportunity on this Vote.

Mr. BATEY: It has been claimed by the Secretary for Mines that the Government have made a profit, and not a loss on their coal purchases. During the Debate we have been told that this blackleg coal cost £4 per ton, and we were also informed that the last of this foreign coal was cleared on the 23rd December last. I want to remind the Secretary for Mines that that was three weeks after the collieries restarted work in this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not dealing with this Vote at all.

Mr. BATEY: The Minister has told us that the Government, cleared the last of their foreign coal supplies on 23rd December. Now he says that that coal cost them 80s. a ton which accounts for the big figure in this Estimate. I am suggesting to the Minister that he could have got cheaper coil for at least three weeks in the month of December, and that there was no need for this Department to pay £4 a ton for blackleg coal. Besides, for the whole of the month of November they were bringing in this blackleg coal, until—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not responsible for the importation of coal. I do not want to keep on ruling the hon. Member out of order.

Mr. BATEY: I do not want to argue with the Chair, but you are trying now
to crib and cabin us as we have not been before this evening. We have been allowed to deal with all these questions on a former Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether that be the case, but, if this has been gone into on the previous

Estimate, we certainly cannot go into it again now.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £42,373, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 254.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[7.33 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Mosley, Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cope, Major William


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. sir James T.
Briggs, J. Harold
Couper, J. B.


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Apsley, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Astor, Viscountess
Burman, J. B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Atkinson, C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, E. T.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Balniel, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bethel, A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Clayton, G. C.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril
England, Colonel A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cockcrill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Everard, W. Lindsay


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)
Savery, S. S.


Fielden, E. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Scott, Rt. Hon. sir Leslie


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Forrest, W.
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Foster, Sir Henry S.
Lougher, L.
Shepperson, E. W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gates, Percy
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macnaghten, Hon, sir Malcolm
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Hon. O. F, G. (Westm'eland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Storry-Deans, R.


Grace, John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Templeton, W. P.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hanbury, C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harland, A.
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tinne, J. A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nelson, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hawke, John Anthony
Neville, R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Waddington, R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Pennefather, Sir John
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Dr. T.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wells, S. R.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Phillipson, Mabel
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
pilcher, G.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hopkinson, sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Raine, W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Withers, John James


Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Womersley, W. J.


Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rye, F. G
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart



Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Maior Sir Harry Barnston and


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandon, Lord
Captain Lord Stanley.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 119.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[7.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buckingham, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Berry, Sir George
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bethel, A.
Burman, J. B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Apsley, Lord
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campbell, E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Carver, Major W. H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cassels, J. D.


Astor, Viscountess
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Atkinson, C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, J. Harold
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Clayton, G. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major William
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hard, Percy A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw. R G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamo, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Stanley Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


England, Colonel A.
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Storry-Deans, R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Ford, Sir P. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Forrest, W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Foster, sir Henry S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Templeton, W. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Tinne, J. A.


Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meller, R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grace, John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Waddington, R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and otley)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watts, Dr. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Harland, A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hawke, John Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Withers, John James


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Capt R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, B. c. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pilcher, G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Raine, W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hills, Major John Walter
Ramsden, E.



Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Rice, Sir Frederick



Holt, Capt. H, P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromley, J.
Dalton, Hugh


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Day, Colonel Harry


Baker, Walter
Cape, Thomas
Duncan, C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Charleton, H. C.
Dunnico, H.


Batey, Joseph
Clowes, S.
Fenby, T. D.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gardner, J. P.


Briant, Frank
Connolly, M.
Gibbins, Joseph


Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.
Gillett, George M.




Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, T. W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stephen, Campbell


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A.


Grundy, T. W.
Morris, R. H.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mosley, Oswald
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.
Townend, A. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James
Whiteley, W.


Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kennedy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kenyon, Barnet
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lansbury, George
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


Lawrence, Susan
Smillie, Robert
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lindley, F. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

CLASS II.

BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Colonel Guinness): The reason for this Supplementary Vote of £450,000 for the Beet Sugar Subsidy is that, during the current season, a very high rate of production has been reached. It is not realised, perhaps, by the Committee how difficult it is to foresee, when the Estimates have to be closed in the Spring, what the Sugar Beet Subsidy will amount to for the following season. When we close the Vote the crop has not been sown; sowing takes place at the end of April and even sometimes into May. Besides the difficulty of estimating the acreage, we have this year achieved a much greater yield—about an extra ton per acre on 130,000 acres under beet cultivation as compared with last year. In addition to that, the demand of the factories on the Vote has been increased by the better sugar content of the crop, which this year is estimated at about 17 per cent as against 16.3 last year. This year, again, the season has been very good, and little damage has been
done by frost. The manufacturing processes have advanced much more rapidly than last year, and we shall have to find a much larger proportion of the total subsidy out of this year's Votes and less after the close of the financial year. This money, which the Committee is asked to vote to-night, is evidence of the success of a policy which was adopted with the general agreement of all parties. Therefore, I hope that even though it involves a very considerable sum of money the Committee will not grudge the Vote for which I ask.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: While supporting the passing of this Vote and the principle involved in the Sugar Subsidy Act, I hope, before the Vote passes, that the Minister will give us some information on the effects, as far as he has been able to gauge them, of the working of the Act up to the present. Does this demand for an increased sum over the former Estimate indicate that the Act is succeeding in the objects which the House had in view in passing it? The Committee will recollect that a great deal was made on both sides of the House of the advantages which would accrue, above all, to agricultural labourers; second, to the standard of agriculture in this country; and, third, to national wealth by the development of resources hitherto unused. In my view, it was a very great experiment, and one of the greatest Measures perhaps undertaken by
the House since the establishment of the Ministry of Agriculture. A quarter of the period laid down by the Act has already passed, and we can take a certain stock of what will be the effect at the end of this avowedly temporary Measure.
Take the benefit to the worker first. The Minister, though he cannot give us exact figures, will be able to tell us interesting things as to what has been the effect, both on the agricultural worker and on the workers in the factories who may or may not have been drawn from the country. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed h[...] firm belief that the Measure would be of great benefit, especially to the workers, and that it would provide more work in the country and stem the flight from the land. The plan appears to be developing according to intention. The acreage has gone up, since the passing of the Act, from 16,000 to 130,000 and, as the Minister indicated, the yield has gone up in proportion. I think 13,000 tons were produced three years ago, and it is now 130,000 tons. The country is now producing, instead of a negligible fraction of its sugar consumption, about five weeks' consumption, which is a formidable thing.
What has been the effect on the agricultural worker? A year ago there was a discussion in the House as to the disappointing fact that the agricultural worker was not benefiting by the demand for labour in the factories. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that things have changed in regard to that, and that the factories have taken on the agricultural workers to a great extent. It is very interesting that the figures of the Ministry show a considerable increase in the number of adult male regular agricultural workers. The increase appeared to have been from 1925, 441,000, to 1926, 455,000. How far is that very striking change due to the establishment of the sugar industry? We know that the non-employed, non-agricultural workers have been absorbed in several towns. It was always the case that the Kelham factory absorbed the unemployed in the neighbourhood of Newark; and at Spalding, for instance, the unemployed of Boston have been mainly utilised in running the Spalding factory. We may regard the great part of the expense, I hope, ultimately as a remunerative investment; but, at all events, as diminishing the expenditure
on unemployment relief to a very considerable extent, because some 8,000 men have been employed in the factories.
We do not quite know how much employment has been given by the purchase of machinery made in this country. The Act allowed the Minister to relax a little the obligation to purchase British-made machinery for the factories, and I do not know whether the 25 per cent. allowance was fully utilised. It would be interesting to know, but a great deal of employment has certainly been given in the production of machinery for the factories. I recall the Minister of Agriculture saying, about a year ago in a speech to farmers, that the factories and the sugar subsidy had been a boon which ought to he reflected in the level of wages on the farm.
8.0 p.m.
I am afraid that that argument has not been repeated lately, and I wonder how far the great boon conferred by the sugar subsidy has had that effect. It seems to me that the Minister might have used this argument more strongly, and it would have justified it if he had used it with regard to the miserable wages which, in spite of public regulation, still prevails in several counties, and asked, as the Wages Act allowed him to do, for a reconsideration of wages in those counties where they are lowest. He could have employed the argument that the sugar subsidy has in very large areas made it more possible to pay a better wage. He cannot contend that the level of 30s. which still prevails in several counties is sufficient, and that it really satisfied the standard laid down in the Wages Act. If it is claimed that the sugar subsidy has helped the farmer, it follows that the farmer is in the better position to help the labourer and the argument must be used both ways. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The really vital thing in this very great undertaking—one of the greatest educational undertakings ever made in this country with regard to agriculture—is this. Does the Minister see a prospect of continuity of the successful establishment of the industry? The facts are beginning to give us some guidance on that point. In about seven years factories and farmers will have to face a world price, and they will have to
compete with foreign standards all round. We know that they will be very unwise to count on any prolongation of the subsidy.
The foreigner has several advantages over the home grower, and one of the greatest of these is that he gets cheap labour, very often imported labour. For example, in East Prussia you find Polish labour employed on the great estates. We in this country have got higher standards of living to maintain, and we must do so not by reaching, but by exceeding the efficiency of the foreigner, with the help of one or two great advantages which we have got and which he has not got. We have the advantage that we have come later into the field and that we are putting in the latest machinery. The Ministry tile other day issued an extremely interesting summary of the situation on the wireless. One point made there was that we had the advantage in point of climate. It is the case that here and there our production is extremely good, and I do not suppose that the Dutch or the Germans could readily surpass the results obtained, for instance, by a farmer in Suffolk who grew 18 tons to the acre with a percentage of 17 per cent. I believe we are going to secure a great advantage in adopting the new system of all-year sugar extraction, and anyone will realise, who has visited Eynsham, the incredible economy that will result if that system is made practicable. It would appear that the future is regarded with confidence by investors. A very considerable amount of capital has been put into the business by people who know that the subsidy will undoubtedly drop to a low level in a very few months and disappear in a very few years. For anyone to think that the subsidy will continue would, to my mind, indicate almost insanity, because it is incredible that the British people will tolerate anything more than a temporary educational grant of public money, taken from every pocket in the land, for the special benefit of one industry. If anyone encouraged the idea of a continuance of the subsidy he would be the worst friend of the industry. The most helpful thing that the Minister could do would be constantly to urge on the factories and on the farmers that he will help them in every conceivable way to increase their efficiency so that they will
be able to face the world at the end of 10 years, on a basis of free competition, standing on their own legs.
I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks of the educational effects, so far, on farmers and their methods. The reports and experiences that I have gained are very encouraging in that direction. I always regarded this effort as being, above all, an educational effort, an extremely costly but an extremely valuable contribution to agricultural education. It may be said that we are spending too much on this educational effort. While it is a prodigious amount, yet I might say that, in my own view, so long as you are not able to control farmers and the letting of land as you would by the public ownership of land, you will always have to pay very heavily for educational improvement. We have spent enormous sums on educational grants in agriculture, and the result has not been very great. A county organiser was telling me the other day that certainly not more than 5 per cent. of the farmers in his county pay any attention at all to the demonstrations or the lectures or the educational work of any kind for which Parliament is giving all the time extremely large sums. My view of the matter, when it was first discussed, was that the cost of such a contribution as this to education, though it will be certainly more than double what our educational grant was before, might be worth three or four times as much, because it would not be neglected by the farmers, and the gratifying thing is that it has taken effect on a very wide scale. I have observed that in Lincolnshire and other counties there has been a great stir of farming, scientific and mechanical interest, bringing things more on to the level of the highly-developed Continental agriculture. Machinery is becoming much more familiar. The farmers are getting the men trained, which means that they will earn more money, and a new spirit has been introduced. I hope the Minister will tell us what he can by way of evidence on these points, especially as to the educational effect on the farmer, and the effect on the standard of life and the degree of employment of the agricultural worker.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The last thing I wish to do is to try to queer the pitch for anything the Minister
may wish to say in answer to the questions which were addressed to him, but, as I am rather deeply interested and a great deal mixed up in this industry, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two things on the same lines as those dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. In the first place, has this industry helped agriculture and agricultural labourers? Well, I do not think I am over-stating the case when I say that in the Eastern Counties it is the one thing which is saving the arable farmer. Everyone who has studied agriculture knows the terrible difficulties of the arable farmers in the Eastern Counties during the last few years. I believe the sugar-beet industry is in the process of saving him from practical extinction, and the measure of the success of the sugar-beet industry is not the crop and the acreage of the sugar-beet crop this year, but it is the very much larger acreage of the arable land which is affected by the sugar-beet grown in rotation. There are many thousands of acres, probably hundreds of thousands of acres now under straw crops this year because the farmers who farm these acres have adopted sugar beet as one of the crops of their rotation. The profit they make on the sugar beet will enable them to grow their wheat or barley.

Mr. MacLAREN: And pay higher rents.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: That has not been the effect. It has been the experience that he has been able to pay a somewhat higher wage.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move,
That, bearing in mind the Preamble to the Parliament Act, 1911, as to the intention to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, it is desirable to remodel the House of Lords by increasing its representative element and reducing its hereditary character.
It is the judgment of history that a two-Chamber Government is essential to any well-ordered community. There is no great civilised State, in fact I believe there is no civilised State of any size to-day, which does not accept and practise some form of two-Chamber Government. That judgment of history is based upon the bed-rock of experience Experience shows that it is a good thing that measures passed often under the sway of emotions, often passed in haste and without full consideration, should be subject to review and amendment; and that is especially the case in Britain where there is no security such as exists in certain countries by way of a referendum or the requirement of a certain proportion of votes in favour of any measure, before making organic changes. You can, given a large majority in this House, alter any law, however fundamental it may popularly be supposed to be, with the same ease with which you alter or repeal the most trumpery piece of legislation from past times. No party in this country, and I believe no political leader, has ever advocated one-Chamber Government. There has only been in English history one experiment in one-Chamber Government. That was the unfortunate experiment between the year 1649 and 1657 which is famous in the annals of the House of Commons for the intrusion of soldiery into its midst, and that experiment led directly to the reintroduction by Oliver Cromwell of a second Chamber. He took pains to select as members of his new second Chamber people whom he described as "men fearing God, and of good conversation." In that way the Puritans described men who would vote as they were told. With that one solitary exception this country has always practised, as have all other great civilised States, two-Chamber Government.
Looking back upon history it is very difficult to say that system has been in any way a mistaken one, or a failure. Although there have been many cases when good reforms have been delayed by the House of Lords, there is no case where any great measure on which the will of the country was strongly expressed was ever permanently blocked. Many measures have been usefully stopped there, and an enormous number
have been usefully amended and in the ordinary practice of Parliamentary life such as private Bill legislation I do not imagine that anyone will contradict the view that the existence of a second Chamber is not only desirable but essential where you have an overworked House of Commons. It follows therefore, I hope, that I am on common ground when I say the time has arrived when we might seriously consider the fulfilment of the promise of a reformed House of Lords as set out in the Preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911, which has been accepted, I believe, by all parties. Certainly that promise has been given and repeated time after time by leaders of the Liberal party and it is one which has for many years past been one of the objectives of the Conservative party, and although I see on the Order Paper two hon. Members on the Socialist benches have tabled an Amendment which suggests that they are wedded to the hereditary principle and the continuance of the present House of Lords, I imagine even on that side of the House the view is shared to a very large extent that we have not an ideal revising chamber at present, and that there is room for reform. In fact I notice that in noble self-abnegation the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has himself tabled an Amendment abolishing the hereditary principle altogether. So that I think we are all in agreement that some reform is necessary, and the question we have to face is whether the time is not opportune now for bringing that reform into operation.
Sixteen years have passed since the Parliament Act was passed. The heated passions which then prevented a quiet and detached view of the constitutional position have long since disappeared, and, although possibly controversial issues might he touched by efforts to fulfil that other promise in the Preamble of the Parliament Act, better to define the powers of the House of Lords, the meaning of money Bills and so on, no reversal is sought in this Motion of the main constitutional effects of the Parliament Act. The object of this Motion is to reform the personnel rather than the powers of the House of Lords, and to reform the personnel of the House of Lords has never
been a party question at all. I think also that at the present time, when we are coming more and more to the view that apart from certain emancipating measures like the Trade Union Bill we do not want to see a great vista of legislation in front of us, but most of us I believe consider that the time has come for Parliament to devote more attention to matters of administration and finance than to legislation, there is one of those rare periods of leisure in our legislative history when we can set our house in order without intruding upon the competitive objective of legislation.
If that is the case, may I submit why I contend that it is 7ery desirable that this reform should be taken in hand'? I base that view upon the potentialities of the political situation, while the House of Lords still remains a purely hereditary assembly. There is at present very great danger of one political party stepping into power on a wave of public emotion caused by one particular issue, as, for instance, the Socialist Government coming in on the Free Trade issue two or three years ago. Elected on that one issue, it can, during the course of five years of office, direct its activities to all sorts of Measures which were certainly never within the orbit of political opinion at the time when it obtained its mandate from the country. In the course of five years, all sorts of events turn up which are never contemplated when the House of Commons is elected the first instance, and it is therefore quite competent for a House which no longer represents a majority of the people to bring in in three successive Sessions a Measure on which no clear voice has ever been expressed. One can imagine all sorts of contingencies, but it is conceivable to think of a party which is elected on one issue, then after it has been in office for a year, undertaking some great revolutionary legislation never contemplated by the electorate, possibly involving vast schemes of persecution and expropriation, a Red terror or a White terror. These things, at all events, are legally possible, and having regard to the great fluctuations which come over the public opinion of such a universal democracy as ours, it is possible to envisage all sorts of schemes which might be brought in by a party happening to have a majority in the House of Commons which are very
detrimental to the interests of the great mass of the population and also antagonistic to their wishes.
Those are potentialities which I think everybody will recognise. I submit that, for two reasons, the, House of Lords is totally unfit to act as a Second Chamber in face of these potentialities. It is not a question of the ability of the members of the House of Lords. I do not suppose that any reasonable man will deny that that Chamber is probably supreme in its wealth of oratory, in its knowledge of men and affairs and in its experience in imperial and foreign politics. Therefore, it is unfitted for its purpose not because of the quality of its personnel but because it is almost entirely an hereditary body. I should like to develop the hereditary question first. It is unfit as a Second Chamber because so long as its personnel is based almost entirely upon the hereditary principle it cannot and never will command the confidence of the great mass of working people in this country. Things used to be different in the earlier days of English history. Shakespeare is full of contempt for the mob and of admiration for what he calls "degree." As late a political philosopher as Burke described the House of Lords in phrases which showed the admiration with which he and the detached political philosophers of that era regarded the Second Chamber. He said:
Nobility is a graceful ornament to civil order: it is the Corinthian capital of political Society.
Those views have long since passed away. It was inevitable that they should pass away, quite apart from the prejudices which have been served up in the political arena from time to time during electioneering propaganda, particularly in 1910. It was inevitable because we have become such a complete democracy that the ordinary man in the street, however much he likes, and he very often does like and admire some popular Peer whom he happens to know, yet in the main, looking at the House of Lords as an institution, he regards it, and quite rightly, as an indefensible institution, and incompatible with general democratic principles. I suppose there are no more cherished stock quotations known to the English people than lines from Burns and Tennyson in which they
disparage rank and birth. How often have we heard the cliché,
Kind hearts are more than coronets.
That was the sort of thing which the people of the Victorian period delighted in. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me, especially after the squalid electioneering in 1910, that, however just and wise the views taken by the House of Lords might be in any quarrel with a passing majority of the day in the House of Commons, however just and wise their cause might be, that cause would never have a hearing with the great mass of the electorate, because of the intense prejudice felt by democracy against a House of Parliament which is almost entirely composed of persons who derive their title from hereditary right. That is the reason why I am asking for support of my Resolution. I do it on the ground that owing to that prejudice it is impossible for the House of Lords as at present constituted to play that important and decisive part which a second chamber ought to play in framing the legislation of this country.
The second reason why I suggest that the House of Lords as at present constituted is unfit for its functions is because it is possible to pass any Meaure by the simple process of swamping the House of Lords with Peers. In the old days it was regarded as a most etxtraordinary thing to suggest that a majority in the House of Lords should be overborne by the creation of new Peers. The threat in 1832 to pass the first Reform Act by means of the creation of Peers was regarded as a most extraordinary innovation. Those theorists of the moment who thought that was not a liability to which an hereditary Second Chamber was subject, were quite wrong. They used to think that no Prime Minister would advise the Crown to override the House of Lords by the creation of Peers. They imagined that 300 or 400 persons would never be discovered who would accept peerages for that simple purpose. The events of 1911 disproved those theories. The Prime Minister of the day was willing to advise the Crown to over-ride the House of Lords by creating Peers, and far from Liberal politicians being unwilling to make the great sacrifice and becoming Peers, they simply jumped at it. The most candid ones said they
would do it to please themselves. The less candid ones said they would do it to please their wives, and the least candid ones said that they would do it to save the country. At any rate, they were all willing. I have no doubt that if the time ever came when a Socialist Government found the House of Lords a barrier to their legislative schemes, they would have the precedent before them, the same course would be taken, and they would get their supporters to make the same great sacrifice.

Mr. J. JONES: They would go round to the employment exchanges.

Mr. HURST: If Socialist Members did become Peers for the sake of their cause, they would be able to tell their constituents that, although they went to the House of Lords and ceased to be Commoners, it must be remembered that the benches in the House of Lords were coloured red and that they would be sitting upon Russian leather.
What about schemes? We all have schemes. I do not think that any two men have the same scheme. There have been a good many Royal Commissions dealing with this question, and many people have written books and articles about it. Most people s conceptions of the Second Chamber resemble the House of Peers in Iolanthe in its fancifulness, without any of its charm. I do not suggest that my scheme is anything more than a mere tentative proposal showing, however, that a revised and reconstituted Second Chamber is now possible. It may be necessary to retain the hereditary element for the simple reason that, unless it is so retained, it may be impossible to get a Bill creating the new House of Lords through the existing House of Lords. Moreover, the preservation of some hereditary element may be more in keeping with English Constitutional practice. The scheme must, in the second place, not involve direct election or direct representation. We do not want to have a House of Lords a mere replica of the House of Commons. We want in the House of Lords men who are unwilling or who are unable from various reasons to stand for the House of Commons, but who, in fact, represent large interests or large services to the State.
My idea is that the Second Chamber should consist of 250 to 300 men, that a proportion of them might be nominated by the county councils and the borough councils, that a certain proportion should be nominated by associations or institutions representing trade, industry and labour, that a certain number should represent capital and labour employed on the land, and that others should represent finance, art, education, medicine, literature and the law. I include the law because we are always hearing that there are no more typical trade unions than the Inns of Court. Therefore, in order [...] show how perfectly trade unionism may be run it is as well to have those great societies represented. As far as the representatives in the Second Chamber are concerned, I do not think they should be elected for more than ten years, because we do not want to have a Second Chamber consisting entirely of old men. We want to have it revived and rejuvenated at intervals. I suggest that there should be 60 persons nominated for life by the Crown, with a retiring age, selected from persons who have held high positions in diplomacy, or who have acted as Governors or Governors-General of various Colonies and Dominions. Then there would be the Law Lords.
The representation which I suggest in place of the hereditary element would have the enormous advantage of being unable to be swamped by the creation of Peers ad hoc on the recommendation of the Leader of the party in a majority in the House of Commons, and it would have a second advantage of not being disabled by its hereditary character from appealing to public opinion. As far as the Bishops are concerned, having regard to our recent experience I think it may be doubtful whether representatives of the various religious s bodies do not lose their hold over men's hearts and minds by intermingling in political and industrial disputes. Of course that is only a detail. Peers would be eligible to sit in the House of Commons and women would be eligible to sit in the Second Chamber, and it would be an improvement to merge the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the House of Lords as the supreme Court of Appeal for the whole Empire. That, of course, is only my own view. No doubt every hon. Member will have his own conception of what ought to be done.
My submissions are these: First of all, the time is ripe for a change. Secondly, the change is perfectly feasible. A generation which has settled a federal Constitution for Australia, a unitary Constitution for South Africa and the intricate framework of the League of Nations, need not be baffled by the difficulties confronting it in finding a Constitution for the House of Lords. I say also that it is desirable that the change should be made, and that the best way of making the change is to reduce the hereditary element and increase the representative character of the House of Lords. The issue on which this House has to vote to-night, bearing in mind the Amendment on the Paper, is whether we are going to maintain the present unreformed House of Lords, based on the hereditary principle, which is apparently the system that commends itself to the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), or whether we should adopt the truer and sounder policy, and that is to take immediate steps to devise a Second Chamber more compatible with democracy and, at the same time, a much more effective barrier against hasty and ill-considered legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish particularly to say that the views which I express are not the views of the Committee of which I am the honorary secretary. The views I express are entirely mine. Some of you may have seen the views of that Committee. We asked each one separately to express his view. I am now expressing my views for what they are worth. We all know the history of the Lords and Commons Committee, and we all know the history of the 1911 Act. Therefore, I shall not waste time by going into those matters in great detail. But I want to point out the reason why many of us in this party, and I believe in all parties throughout the country, consider that this is a most important subject, and why we are very anxious to see something done, if possible this Session. The reason is that if one goes thoroughly into the matter, one sees the effect of the Parliament Act. The effect of the Parliament Act is to take away from the House of Lords any power to reject or delay for any
longer period than one month, any Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker conforms to the definition of a money Bill. Further than that, it makes it possible for a majority in the House of Commons, without an appeal to the country and within the lifetime of a single Parliament, to pass into law in two years any Measure that it pleases. That is to all intents and purposes single chamber government.
I have a very great admiration for the House of Lords as it is. I think that we have in the House of Lords a body of men—we will not compare them with men in this House, because that would be unnecessary—many of whom have done great service to the country. There are in the other House men who have risen in all spheres of life, in political life and in law, or as ambassadors, and they are men of outstanding ability and proved intelligence. On the other hand there is no doubt that there are quite a number of them who would never be any good at anything. I hope hon. Members will realise that I am trying to be fair and looking at the thing squarely. In all assemblies, even in trade unions and Conservative associations, there are good men and bad men. On the other hand, had I been one of the Peers—I am not and never shall be—I should lung ago have set about doing something in the House of Lords on the question. I believe that the reform of the House of Lords should have started in the House of Lords. It is still not too late. On that point I would like to have the views of some of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, because this is a question which they should initiate. We in this House may have our own opinions as to how many peers should be retained, and so forth, but it is up to the Peers to say, "Here there are so many of us. We are quite willing to cut our House down to such and such a number, and, if you wish, have representative peers." It is a question for the peers to decide to a great extent. If they do not do that it is up to us to take the initiative.
I wish particularly to point out the very important things that should be remembered in any scheme that is adopted. First, the majority of people in this country must have the last say. That is one of the first things and one of the most important things. Another thing is
that all parties are not properly represented in the House of Lords. I would like to see a far larger proportion of gentlemen who have perfectly opposite views, but who have just as much right to their say as anyone else in the country. The maximum amount of authority in the new Chamber should be power merely to prevent undue haste in the passing of far-reaching laws by delaying. They should refer questions, if necessary—that is, if the two Houses, after discussion, cannot agree amongst themselves—either to the country or to a referendum. These things could be worked out in more detail later. Then I am very strongly indeed in favour of having women in the House of Lords as in this House. Some of them are very good, and some are better still.
Any reform of the House of Lords brings with it the necessity of amending the Parliament Act. In that respect I would strengthen the hand of the Speaker (who at present has the uneviable task of defining single-handed the meaning of a Money Bill) by associating with him the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England. I would like to have a Committee set up, or perhaps the same gentlemen could decide, and tell us definitely what a Money Bill is. At present it seems a very indefinite quantity. If you ask learned men what a Money Bill is you will find among them great difference of opinion. I am merely expressing my own ideas on this subject, because I think it is a good thing to have as many views on it as possible.
I do not quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend, in some respects, in my idea of a reformed House of Lords. I should limit the number to 300 or 400. I should have a small number of Royal Princes and a few representatives of the Church. Of the remaining Members, or the principal Members, one might say, I would have one-third hereditary Peers chosen as is done to-day in Scotland and Ireland. If one-third were hereditary Peers, I am told that would mean a sixth part of the present House of Lords. I would have another one-third elected by county councils in one manner or another. I also thought of having one-sixth nominated by the Prime Minister of the day for the tenure of his Government and one-sixth by the Leader of the Opposition so that he would
have his own people in there if necessary. I think those nominated by the county councils, for instance, should be Members for at least seven to ten years so that they would not be, as we are now, rather too dependent upon constituents. It is a good thing sometimes to be dependent on constituents, but one of my constituents whom I see sitting on the Labour benches will not vote for me whatever I say to-night, and one likes to feel a little independent of them from time to time. It is my belief that Cabinet Ministers should be allowed to speak in both Houses on matters appertaining to their own Departments only. That is the scheme which I would like to put forward. I think there is a great deal in it which, with good will, might be accepted on all sides of the House. Doubtless there are certain things to be discussed and criticised, but what I am anxious to see is that something is done to reform the second Chamber and that it is done as quickly as possible.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
in the opinion of this House, the proposed changes in the House of Lords are intended to gerrymander the Constitution in the partisan interests of the Conservative party, and that the present Government has no constitutional right to proceed with such proposals since it does not represent a majority of the electors and since such proposals were not submitted to the people at the last election.
The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) used one, and I thought only one serious argument with which I shall endeavour to deal before I proceed with she rest of my speech. He imagined that a Government might be elected which, after sitting here for a number of years would get out of touch with public opinion and he argued that in those circumstances some Second Chamber was necessary in order to reject Measures passed without the public will being ascertained. That argument is an exaggeration. It is a hallucination. There never has been a time in which this House has been compelled to keep more closely in touch with public opinion than to-day. There never has been a time in which we have been so continuously supervised and watched by the public outside as we are to-day. That is the
experience of all. One of the reasons for that is the rise of the Labour party, because now for the first time the people of this country find that the main attention of this House is concentrated upon questions which go right into their daily lives and homes. Apart from that, there is the multiplication of agencies. We have the newspapers, our political associations in our constituencies holding regular meetings and watching what we are doing, all manner of organisations, trade unions, chambers of commerce, employers associations, organisations formed to forward particular causes like the women's organisations—hundreds of them—so that the streets for half a mile round this House are honeycombed with their offices and their paid officials form practically a profession by themselves.
We sit in this House, but the walls of the House are transparent and every act which we do here is watched by millions around us. In those circumstances, if it happens, as it may happen occasionally, that any Government passes fundamental legislation in which it defies the public will that fact is hound to be fully realised. The punishment of such a Government can be left to the people at the first general election which follows and the legislation can be repealed. But for the hon. and learned Member to picture this extraordinary House of Lords consisting of superior persons and snobs of every kind—this extraordinary conglomeration of people, none of whom, he says himself, are to be directly elected, none of whom is to represent the people—and to say that this unrepresentative body ought to be set up to protect the people against those representatives whom the people themselves have elected, shows the grotesque absurdity of the whole argument. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side and the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell) pictured what would be the condition of the country if there were no Second Chamber. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side began by a sort of historical nightmare of single-chamber government. He seemed to be entirely unaware of the fact that, in the most important issues of policy, we are living under single-chamber government at the present and nothing that he suggests would prevent it. In the whole realm of executive policy the power is in the hands of this House and
of this House alone, because the decisions are made in our discussions on Estimates with which the other House is forbidden by law to interfere.
Look at what we decide as a single chamber. The size of the Army, expenditure on education, expenditure on social reconstruction, the problems of Imperial defence, the problems arising in the vast and limitless realm of foreign affairs, are all decided by this House acting alone. Take domestic policy. Finance, which raises the fiercest political fights of all, which raises questions which go to the very roots of society, is by law the sole prerogative of the Commons. I think the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell seemed to think that this was a very dangerous position, and that special precautions must be taken. I do not know whether he recollects what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his last Budget speech. This is what he said:
In this time of acute financial temptation since the close of the war, every Government, Coalition, Conservative, and Labour, has maintained the strictest and severest finance.
And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking as an ex-Prime Minister in the same Debate, said:
The finance of all Governments since the war has constituted the most remarkable achievement in the finance of any country in the world.
Let hon. Members read those passages, and then let them consider the position in France, where they have a Second Chamber something like the type which the hon. Member has pictured, and with powers over finance, and where the refusal of that Second Chamber to permit the tightening up of the taxation of wealth has been acknowledged by everyone to be one of the main contributory causes of the ignominious spectacle in finance that France bas presented since the close of the War.
Now I come to a proposal made by the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell. There have been very few proposals descending to particulars as to the powers of the new House of Lords as against its composition, but the hon. Member did make one proposal, which was that the power of the Speaker to determine what is and is not a money Bill should be taken out of his hands and should be
handed over to a Committee containing the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, or some other Judge of the Supreme Court, and the Speaker.

Mr. J. JONES: Two to one!

9.0 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: What an extraordinary proposal, a proposal which runs counter to the whole experience of the last 100 years. If there is one thing that has been accomplished during the last century, it has been that the absolute impartiality of the Speaker between the different parties is now an acknowledged convention of British Parliamentary life. We all of us accept the impartiality of Mr. Speaker, but, we do not all of us accept the impartiality in political questions of any Judge in a Court of Law. Still less do we accept the impartiality in political questions of a Lord Chancellor, who is a political officer, and who himself would be a member of the Cabinet that was responsible for this legislation, and in the case of a recent Government the position was held by certainly one of the mast venomous and embittered partisans in the politics of the day.
I now come back to the main argument of which the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side made use. He said that this House has no right to pass Bills on which the opinion of the people has not been clearly expressed. What right then has this House to pass the Bill of which he is the advocate to-night? I read the speeches in the House of Lords, but I have not found a single sentence in which there has been any attempt to show that the people demand or support this proposed legislation. I have searched into what was happening during the last General Election, and I think I am right in saying that only one Minister made any reference to this question then, and that was the Prime Minister, who, in a speech in Perth, made a very few vague and non-committal observations which passed practically unnoticed by the public. They had no effect upon the electorate, because they were made four days before the poll, and they were made on the day of the publication of the Zinovief letter.
In these circumstances, what is the position? The hon. Member's argument is that this House must be prevented from
passing Bills into law on which the people have not been consult ed, and yet at the very same moment the proposal is that there shall be a Bill passed making a fundamental change in the whole structure of the Constitution, a proposal which I say, in itself stultifies the very argument on which the hon. Member has defended it. I do not think the hon. Member was fully frank in his proposal. He told us that be only proposed to alter the personnel of the House of Lords, and had no proposals with regard to their powers. He knows that any alteration of the personnel is intended to be the preliminary to an alteration of their powers, and every speech in the House of Lords, including the speech made by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Government, stated distinctly that there would be an alteration in their powers and a strengthening of their right to interfere with the legislation of this House. What does this mean? The hon. Member's speech made perfectly clear what is the motive force behind these proposals. These proposals—and he himself will scarcely deny it—are aimed at the Labour party. They mean that if the Government are defeated in an open conflict in the constituencies, then they wish still to be able to shelter themselves behind the House of Lords, packed with the representatives of plutocratic interests and class prejudice.
The whole of this idea that a defeat in th6 constituencies is to be counteracted in another place, is undemocratic. It is mean. It is a denial of every principle of Parliamentary Government. It appears to me that we on this side of the House in the constituencies already labour under great disadvantages, the balance is already sufficiently tilted on the side of the Conservative party. You have practically all the newspapers which during an election, at the last moment, can divert the minds of the people to some stunt, true or untrue, favourable to yourselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not think much of the people!"] I am saying that you have advantages, and I am pointing out what they are. I said the newspapers. You have the bulk of the wealth, so that at the last election the expenses of Conservative candidates were more flan twice those of Labour candidates. You have the motor car on election day, and you have the great party funds accumulated in the past by selling titles to the wealthy, the vulgar
and the vain. What we have got to set against this is that we have the voluntary zeal of our workers. We have the unpaid labour of countless thousands of poor men, and we have the rising youth of the land. Our position is this, and this is what the Amendment states, that if with these legitimate and honourable weapons we are able to win a victory in the open fight in the constituencies, and we are returned to this House with a majority behind us, then when we have got that majority, we are entitled to the same rights of governing as the party opposite. If there is to be a blockage of the free path of our legislation if any proposals of this kind are carried out, then what a Parliament has done, by another Parliament can be undone, and one of the first tasks of a Labour Government will be that the House of Lords will finally disappear.

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like, first, to deal with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), when he said that a second Chamber system of government is common ground between the two sides of the House. We have not specifically stated in our Amendment that the Labour party stands for single Chamber government, but, as a matter of fact, this party is committed to the idea of single Chamber government. In regard to the proposal now before the House, we take this point of view: We would rather stand by the Devil we know than the Devil we do not know. We would rather stand by the House of Lords as it exists at the present time, than a new House of Lords probably with new powers, and, speaking entirely for myself, I would rather have the honest stupidity of the hereditary Peer than the enlightened cunning of the ennobled industrialist. It is quite clear that the motive behind this Resolution, as my hon. Friend has said, is to strengthen the House of Lords. Reform is what is suggested, but what is really suggested is the strengthening of that Chamber, and it is not desired to strengthen that Chamber on broad national grounds, but to strengthen it purely from partisan motives. It is desired to strengthen it as a bulwark against the Labour party. There is a rising tide of Socialist opinion in this country. The Conservative party
is afraid of that, and wants, if it can, to erect a constitutional bulwark against which that tide of opinion will dash itself in vain.
That is the burden of all the argument which has taken place within the Conservative party itself. You read innumerable letters in the "Times," "Daily Telegraph," and such papers, and that is the theme of all those letters. They say, in effect, "A day of judgment is coming to the Conservative party. Let us prepare for that day of judgment by erecting a constitutional barrier which will prevent a Labour Government when it is elected carrying out the things which the people have elected it to carry out." The Resolution is astute in this respect. It has not made any mention of alteration of powers, and the hon. and learned Member who moved it, expressly said that he did not want to see any alteration in powers; but, later in his speech, I think he gave himself away, because he did say that he wanted the House of Lords to be a stronger barrier against rash legislation, and certainly the hon. Member who seconded the Motion expressly declared that he did want additional powers given to the Second Chamber. It is quite true, as we all know, that members of the House of Lords would not look at any scheme for the alteration of their personnel unless there were some additional powers conferred upon them. They complain frequently—and I admit there is a certain amount of reason about it—that at the present time they are reduced to the ignominous position of being a mere Chamber of registration, and it is quite certain that that body would never for a moment look at any scheme of reform unless some additional powers were given to them. The Labour party, and, indeed, the great mass of the electors of this country, will not tolerate the giving of any additional powers to the House of Lords. If the Conservative party think that either the Labour party or the people of this country will stand that kind of thing, they are living in a fool's paradise. There is no demand for increased powers, except from the Conservative party. There is no demand even from the Conservative party, except, if I may make a distinction in reaction, from the most reactionary section of that party. There is no demand from the
general body of Conservative Members for any alteration in the existing arrangement of the House of Lords. As far as the mass of the people are concerned, if there is any demand at all, it is not for a more efficient House of Lords, not for a House of Lords with greater powers, the demand is for the abolition of the House of Lords itself. If ever the House of Lords is so misguided as to attempt in future to interfere with any first-class proposal brought into this House by a Government representing the people, the House of Lords will speedily find what the feeling of the people is on this point.
No case has been made for any reform of the, House of Lords or increase of its powers. What is the reason given by the hon. and learned Member who moved the Motion? He wants an effective House of Lords as a safeguard against undue haste and precipitancy in legislation. He is apparently afraid that proposals brought before this House will not be adequately examined and discussed. I submit to hon. Members that that is an absolute travesty of the facts. Is it not common ground that the trouble about procedure in this House is not that the question is not discussed adequately, but that it is discussed ad nauseam. If there is one criticism more than another which can be brought against this House, it is not that it is too rapid, and gets legislation through too quickly, but that it is altogether too slow. Any serious student of our political affairs knows that what is causing anxiety to people who want to do things by means of Parliament is that if there were a Government in power with ideas, a Government with a programme—I do not accuse the present Government of having ideas or a programme—the machinery of Parliament would be found so cumbrous and so slow that that Government would not be able to deliver the goods to the people. That is the real thing worrying people who consider the Parliamentary position at the present time. They do not want to see any clogging of the Parliamentary machine, anything making it more difficult to get business through quickly, but, instead, they want a revised procedure which will enable us to pass our legislative proposals more quickly. I would warn the Conservative party, if I may be so rash as to do so, that if they
attempt to interfere with the House of Lords as it exists at the present time by reforming it and giving it increased powers, that will inevitably lead to a demand for the abolition of the House of Lords itself.
If we are going to have a House of Lords strengthened, with greater powers, the position of a Labour Government would become absolutely intolerable. Every proposal would have to be considered with the thought that the House of Lords might interfere with it. We would be hampered in all our legislative proposals. We might bring forward a proposal in the full belief that we would get it through the House of Lords, might discuss it for weeks in this House, tramping through the Division Lobbies night after night, and find, finally, all our labours wasted through the House of Lords ignominiously rejecting the proposal. That would be an intolerable situation for a Labour Government to be in, and no Labour Government is going to sit down under it. There is no real case against Single Chamber government. We believe in democracy and in the right of the people to rule. Hon. Members opposite give lip service to that principle. If we believe in the right of the people to rule, what case is there for a Second Chamber? It is said we could pass legislation which does not command the support of the majority of the country. That might have been true 100 years ago, but it is no longer true to-day. We now have a great and powerful Press in the country, which can act in a very effective way if the Government of the day attempts to pass through this House a measure which is manifestly unpopular. We have a great development of the means of communication. Hon. Members can keep in closer touch with their constituents than used to be the case, and their constituents can keep in closer touch with them. There is a great development of the organisations to which my hon. Friend referred; and the postal service is used much more generally now to bring home to Members what their constituents think about given matters. On small matters which do not arouse any general interest we are frequently flooded with postcards and circulars from our constituents, and it is quite certain that if there were any strong feeling against a given proposal, it would
be quite easy for the electors to make that manifest and deter the Government from pursuing that particular line of policy.
At the present time we have a single chamber system of government. Every time a Tory Government is in office we have a single Chamber system of Government. Nominally we have two Chambers, but in actual practice the Second Chamber does the bidding of the Conservative caucus. Take last year, when the Mines (Eight Hours) Act was passed. If ever there was an occasion when the House of Lords might justly have protected the people of this country by saying, "This is a rash and ill-considered Measure which is being passed through with undue haste and precipitancy" it was then. The House of Lords did nothing of the kind. It allowed that Measure to go through, as it allows every Measure to go through which is brought forward by a Conservative Government, and closured Labour peers as an hon. Friend reminds me. As soon as a Conservative Government comes into office there is art "all-clear" signal put up in the Upper House. I am certain that as soon as a Labour Government conies into office again, there will be a danger signal put up there. That is an intolerable position for the Labour party to be in. The Labour party is not going to tolerate that. I am only a back bench Member and I have no particular authority. It is an idea of mine always, if I can, to discuss a question on its merits. I hate having to refer to authority. I would prefer to discuss a question on its merits. On this occasion I am going back on my general rule. Feeling that I am only an obscure back bencher, I want to lean on the support of a great constitutional authority and I am going to support myself on a constitutional authority which I think will be accepted in all quarters of the House. I refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the First Reading Debate on the Parliament Bill said this:
I do not believe that a bi-cameral system is necessary to the stability of the State.
Speaking in the election which preceded that—and of course hon. Members will notice that he is still more expansive and vigorous under the influence of the hustings—he said:
Lord Lansdowne has referred to Measures which the House of Lords allowed to pass, but the British people are not Hotentots, they are not a lot of children, and they do not want the tutelage of the House of Lords.
This is the final quotation I will give from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Referring to the other House he said:
A played-out, anachronistic Assembly, the survival of a feudal arrangement, utterly passed out of its original meaning, a force long since passed away, it only now requires a smashing blow from the electors to finish it for ever.
If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer could say that in 1910, I think we, representing a great insurgent democracy, which is hungry for social reform and social justice, can certainly say the same thing to-day. We echo what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1910, and for our part, if the House of Lords does dare to step in between the expressed will of the people and the attempt to carry that will to its logical conclusion, we would like to see the House of Lords swept away. The British people are, so far as the ancient institutions are concerned, a very tolerant and indulgent people. They allow these institutions to exist long after they have outlived their usefulness, and I think the British people may be prepared to afford the same kind of treatment to the present House of Lords. As long as the present House of Lords is content to regard itself as a harmless museum of antiquity, as long as it is content to be an interesting survival of the pomp and pageantry of a bygone day, I do not think there will be any great desire on the part of the people to interfere with its existence. But the moment the House of Lords presumes to stand between the people and their elected representatives, I am quite certain the great mass of the people of this country will see to it that it is swept entirely out of the Constitution.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I think it was a surprise to find the Labour party taking such an interest in a matter of constitutional principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

"Quis tulerit Gracchos de sedition querentes."

Mr. J. JONES: Does that horse run to-morrow?

Sir R. SANDERS: Which I may interpret: "Fancy the authors of the general strike being such sticklers about constitutional principle." The criticism I would venture to offer to the Amendment is that it is mistaken as to the facts and incorrect as to its law. It makes two assertions; first, that this question was not put before the country before the last election; and, secondly, that that being so, the Government has no right to bring in a Measure to deal with it. First of all, let me deal with the question of its not having been put before the country before the last election. There was a little book brought out in June, 1924, a few months before the election, called "Looking Ahead." That book was brought out from the Unionist Central Office. The foreword was written by the Prime Minister, and in the foreword he said:
We have endeavoured to reduce the Unionist position into the most concise shape of a paragraphist statement of out views.
That was about as official a pronouncement of Unionist policy as you could get. In that official pronouncement the following words occurred under the heading "House of Lords Reform"
The Unionist party holds unswervingly to the conviction that the existence of an effective Second Chamber is essential for the purpose of securing the revision of hastily prepared Measures, and of safeguarding the considered judgment of the people. It recognises that the establishment of an effective Second Chamber means a reconsideration of the composition and powers of the House of Lords in the light of modern conditions.
For a political pronouncement, that seems to me unusually clear. I think it establishes my right to say that the issue was put clearly before the people of the, country as the adopted policy of the Conservative party some time before the last election. The Amendment which is now before the House lays it down that it is a constitutional practice that a Government has no right to bring Measures before the House of Commons unless these Measures have been announced to the country at the General Election preceding. That is not the Constitution of this country at all. It may be right and it may be desirable that it should be so, but, as a matter of fact, to speak in technical terms, the sovereign power of this country at any given time
does not rest with the electors of this country but with Parliament, and when Parliament is once elected, according to the Constitution of the country, it has power to do anything. Hon Members have referred to the fear which is felt on this question by hon. Members on this side of the House. The Labour Government, if and when such a thing exists, may bring in Measures to which the people of the country object, and that is a very real fear, It is a perfectly constitutional thing, as the Constitution stands at present, for any Government when in power to pass any Measure which it can get through the House, however objectionable it may be. It would be perfectly constitutional for the present Government to pass a Measure disfranchising everyone who is a trade unionist. It would also be perfectly constitutional for the Labour party when in power to disfranchise everybody who was not a trade unionist. This could all be done within the limit of our present Constitution.
I take it that what the Mover and Seconder of this Motion mean is that such proceedings will be unfair and objectionable, and it is for that very reason that I want to have some power behind the House of Commons that can prevent Measures of that kind being passed which, although they may concur with the wishes of the Parliamentary majority today, may be against the wishes of the people as a whole. The hon. Member who spoke last, and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment spoke of this as an illusory fear, because they contend that the power of the Press is sufficient to stop any legislation which is repugnant to the wishes of the people as a whole. I do not believe it. I believe if once the Labour party get into power with a large majority they would pass any Measure they please, however objectionable it might be to the electors of this country. I may be doing them an injustice, but that is my opinion, and that is why I am supporting this Motion. I conceive that it is possible that a Labour party might get a majority at a general election, not on concrete proposals but on vague generalities—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Red Letter!"]—and promises and when their concrete proposals were put forward one after another of them might be found to be objectionable to the majority of the
people of this country. I myself have an enormous belief in the innate conservatism of the people of this country, and although they may be led away sometimes by specious promises, when concrete proposals for a complete change are put before them, the majority of the people are usually found to be against a big change in any direction.
A second Chamber ought to have the power to see that Measures shall not become law until the people of the country have shown that they consent to them. I also wish to have a Second Chamber which will have authority and respect enough from the people of the country to enable it adequately to exercise those powers. That is the reason why I am supporting this Motion. I am not going to enter into details as to the composition of a future Second Chamber, but I should he quite ready to support any reasonable proposals as to the future composition of the Second Chamber if that body were given adequate power. I am a practical man, and I do not think that any House of Commons is likely to sanction or give all the powers I would like to give to the Second Chamber as it is composed at the present time, nor do I think that there is any great chance of carrying through the present Second Chamber any proposal to abolish the hereditary system altogether. It is because I am a perfectly practical man that I want to see something on the lines proposed done in regard to this question, and to see it done quickly. That is why I support the Motion now before the House and I hope it will be carried by a large majority, and one which will show the Government that on this side of the House we want to see this question dealt with, and dealt with before long.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I welcome the speeches which have been made from the Government side of the House because they show that the Conservative party are agreed that the Second Chamber should be reformed, but they are in a state of uncertainty as to the method by which the Second Chamber should be reformed. I do not quite understand the speeches that have been made by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and I am curious to know what is the position taken up by the Labour party upon this matter. I rather gather that the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion are in opposition to the reform of the House of Lords and they imagine that they will
be able to abolish the House of Lords under any circumstances. I have sat here as a Member of this House for the best part of 20 years and in my early years I shared the same optimism, but experience has shown me that there is very little chance of interference with the House of Lords except by way of reform.
A question has been raised as to what ought to be the function of a Second Chamber. The Mover of the Motion is in favour of giving rather extensive powers to the Reformed Chamber. Of course all this must depend upon its constitution, its personnel and the system under which they had to be elected. I agree that the constitution and the powers of the Second Chamber must be such as to attract able men. Ever since 1910 the methods of the House of Lords have been excellent while on the other hand its constitution might very well have been taken from one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas. When, on the other hand, we try to decide how to constitute a new Chamber, we are met by serious difficulties. There is a proposal, in the Motion before the House, that it should be popularly elected. The Bryce Conference as is well known discussed four proposals—one, that it should be a popularly elected Chamber; the second, that it should be elected by the county councils and borough councils and the third, which, if I remember rightly, was the one ultimately adopted, was that it should be elected by various bodies, including a Committee of this House. It would, of course, be very desirable, in a new Chamber, to have direct representatives of the people, but I confess I have never been able quite to understand how that is going to be effected. If the country were divided, as was proposed, into 20 or 30 large districts with proportional representation. I do not quite understand how anyone who was not put up by the Party machine, or who had the support of a trade union, could possibly be elected; the expense would be so great, the physical labour so immense, and the disadvantage under which the candidate would be working in regard to control of the Press, would make it impossible for anyone, except a very rich man, or as suggest, a party representative, to be sent to the Second Chamber.
I have stated already that it is essential that whoever are elected there shoulds
not only be men of ability, but should, by their character and position and their representative views, be able to command the respect and confidence of the general mass of the public. The second proposal was that the House of Lords should be elected by the borough councils and the county councils, but when that was submitted to the Conference, for serious discussion it was found that it would be impracticable. The third proposal, and the one which was adopted, was really an attempt at compromise. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) that the hereditary element cannot under present conditions be abolished; it must prevail, in any event, for a certain time. The proposal was that a part of the new House should be constituted by the present House itself, and it was suggested, and I think with a good deal of force, that the persons who would be elected are those who at the present moment are doing the practical work in that House as it is, that is to say, a class of men who, on account of their character, ability, position and administrative experience, would be found in any Second Chamber, by whatever means it might be constituted. A second suggestion was that a Committee should be formed from this House, who, at the beginning of every Parliament, would elect a certain number of representatives. That, in any event, would secure that the verdict of the country, as expressed in this House, should be immediately and effectively represented in the House of Lords. A. third proposals was, I believe, that the country should be divided into districts, and that a Committee formed of Members of Parliament in those districts should select their own representatives, either from within or from outside the House.
I think it follows from that that where a body of that kind is formed, which is not immediately responsive to the varying changes in public opinion, we cannot extend to that body very much more power than is at present centred in the House of Lords. It was agreed, and I think it will be agreed here to-night, that they should have no power to deal with financial Measures. The question of the definition of what is pure finance is of course a very difficult one, which will have to be met. They would, however,
have the right to initiate legislation, and they would have the right to delay legislation—and I think most of us will agree, who have had a little experience in this House, that it is not always a disadvantage to delay legislation which has been introduced into this House from the other side. In addition to that, they would, after conference with this House, have the right to refer a matter to the country; or possibly we might agree on some form by which, there having been a discussion between the two Houses, and failing agreement, tile majority of this House should ultimately decide. Of this I am quite sure; we cannot abolish the House of Lords in our lifetime. An hon. Member asks, what about the modern Liberals? The hon. Member who moved the Amendment belonged to the same party as I did when we fought the election of 1910, and perhaps I might remind him that, even with the aid of the Nationalist votes in this House, we had not a clear majority against hon. Members on the other side even on the question of the House of Lords. This is not a matter of Liberalism but of practical politics. I agree that we have a one-chamber Government, and I do not believe in one-chamber Government. I believe in two chambers, and a two-chamber Government. But I believe in retaining the real authority in this House. If we can find by some other method that we can have the great advantage of the opinion, the experience, and the character of some of the finer men in this country, it will be in every one's interest—in our own interest as well as that of the other House—that we should call them to our assistance whenever we can.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I should at any rate like to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ellis Davies) in his very clear and emphatic declaration that he, as representing the Liberal party, does not believe in single-chamber government. I should like to hear from the responsible Leaders of the Opposition whether they assent to the same proposition or non It is perfectly tree that the Amendment which has been moved, with, if I may respectfully say so, marked ability from the Front Opposition Bench,, does not specifically raise this question of single-chamber government; but the whole
argument of the Seconder of the Amendment, at any rate, went to show that only single-chamber government would be tolerated by a Labour Government, unless indeed, the ether place were content to remain in complete powerlessness and impotence throughout all time. That is the argument that is put forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman he Leader of the Opposition will give his views to the House to-night, and I hope he will make his position in this matter, and that of his party, absolutely clear.
It is perfectly true that, as I read it, the gist of the Amendment raises a rather different issue. Its proposers object to our discussing this question at all, because they are pleased to say that there was no mandate at the last General Election. I am not going to elaborate that point, because I can add nothing to what was so admirably said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders), and I associate myself, both on constitutional and on all other grounds, with everything that fell from his lips to-night. On the question, however, of the authority of the mandate, I would venture to point out to the House this, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) will, I think, be the last person to deny the truth of what I am about to say. The House and the country know perfectly well that this question of the reconstitution of the second Chamber has been, by the admission of all parties, calling for settlement for the last 15 years. Ever since the year 1911 we have been confessedly living under the torso of a truncated Constitution. The Preamble to the Act of that year, as all Members of this House will recollect, announced, with all the solemnity that can attach to a Preamble, the intention of the authors of that Act, supported by the hon. Member for Keighley, to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis.
The Resolution moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) to-night, practically reaffirms the Preamble of the Act of 1911, which was passed through this House by a Liberal majority. Does the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) repudiate that contention or not? Do those associated with him on those
benches deny the desirability of increasing the representative character of the Second Chamber? If they do not deny it, they ought to vote for the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. If they do deny it, they can do so only on one of two grounds. They can take the position that the present House of Lords is so good a Chamber as to be incapable of improvement—is that their contention I seemed to detect in the argument of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) that he did rather like the House of Lords, as a present constituted. Some of us on this side of the House do not take that view at all. We do not take the view that the Second Chamber, as at present constituted, is the best of all possible Second Chambers. But if that be not the ground on which the Socialist party oppose this Motion, do their responsible leaders take the line that We are to have no Second Chamber at all; that a Second Chamber is useless?
I do not think that that contention would lie in the mouth of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, because he, like other Members, has been imprudent enough to commit his mature thoughts to a published volume. I refreshed my memory from that volume this afternoon, and I observe that, in that admirable work, he speaks of the proper functions of the Second Chamber. How can the Second Chamber have proper functions if there is not to be a Second Chamber at all. The hon. Member for Keighley went on to consider the constitution of this Second Chamber. He rejected the hereditary principle by implication. He rejected the nominative principle, and fell back on the elective principle—precisely that which is advocated by the Motion which he is asking the House to reject.
10.0 p.m.
The Amendment moved from the Opposition Benches is an extremely evasive one. We, on this side, do not want to evade this question. We, or some of us at any rate, think that this problem is one which cannot be any longer evaded, or its solution with safety any longer deferred. I will state, very briefly, why I think it ought not to be deferred. My first reason is this, and it is a point on which I do not think anyone has touched to-night. It is the fact that, with quite exceptional unanimity, the whole civilised world has declared in
favour of the principle of Second Chamber Government. You cannot get over a great fact like that. It is not only our own Colonies, it is not only countries which have consciously modelled their modern constitutions on our own, which have adopted this principle of bi-cameralism. Countries which are ostentatiously opposed to the traditions of the English Constitution have also adopted it—I mean countries like the United States of America, the Modern German Reich, and the Irish Free State. No one of the countries in the civilised world—no great country—has adopted single Chamber Government. I believe there are one or two exceptions, such as Nicaragua, with a single Chamber Government, and one or two Balkan States; but I lay down, as a broad proposition, incapable of being denied, that the civilised world has decided—and even the Socialist party will have to reckon with the decision of the world on a question of this kind—in favour of two Chamber Government. Is that a reason for touching the House of Lords? I think it is a reason for attempting a re-constitution of that body.
In my view, the House of Lords, as at present constituted, does not make a satisfactory Second Chamber. No more than my hon. Friend below me am I going into any detailed plans of reform. I suppose there are as many different opinions on that subject as there are reformers; but there is a general agreement among all those who are genuinely anxious to have an effective Second Chamber—and those who do not want an effective Second Chamber must be prepared, as I have said, to face the opinion of the civilised world—on three points. The first is that the predominently hereditary character of the Second Chamber can, in this country, be no longer maintained. The second is that any reconstituted Second Chamber must contain an elected—I do not say directly or indirectly—but an elected element, and also a nominated element. The third point—I think it is common ground—is that there must be a drastic reduction of numbers. After all, our Second Chamber in this country is, at the present moment, in a constitutional sense, one of the weakest Second Chambers in the world.
It is also the largest Second Chamber in the world. I find some connection between its over-plus of numbers and its constitutional weakness. No one who has ever been called upon to take any part—as the last speaker was called on to take a part—in a practical scheme to be submitted to this House and to the country for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber, can be under any illusion as to the difficulty of the task that awaits him. Yet, I believe that the task is one which ought to be undertaken without undue delay, for two reasons. The first is because, in my view, the present Second Chamber is not really an effective House for revising purposes. The second is because our Constitution, of all the Constitutions in the world, is the most flexible, the most elastic, and, by reason of its elasticity and its flexibility, calls most loudly for the functions appropriate to a Second Chamber.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In this present House of Commons there are 14 heirs to peerages, and, with the exception of myself, they are all sitting on the other side of the House. I notice with great surprise that not one of them is here to defend the order to which they belong. It is left to me, apparently, to step into the breach and defend this order, which I do not intend to do for one moment. Rather would I handle the dagger and hand it to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to make an end to the order as a legislative body. I only want to make one or two observations for the special benefit of the Home Secretary. In the first place, however kind the present Second Chamber is to the present Government, it is a most reactionary body. I take the one test that it refused to allow Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords. When women have practically equal rights with men in this House and in the other institutions of this country, why is it that the Muse of Lords alone stands out against allowing Peeresses in their own right to sit in that House? That alone shows the country how reactionary and unfitted they are for the present State. I am sorry to say that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, in their admirable speeches, if I may use that expression, ran away from their own Motion. I wonder what part the
Whips have had—I see the Chief Whip present—in inducing the hon. and learned Member to bring forward this Motion. Did this particular Motion figure at the top of the list on the cyclostyled paper which is handed out to Members on the day when the Ballot takes place for Motions of this kind? Is it a test of whether there is sufficient urge among Conservative Members to allow the Government an excuse to go forward with their proposals for the Second Chamber? I wonder whether the Government wish to do anything in the matter at all.
This Government sit in a direct minority of the voters of this country. If you count the votes given for Labour and Liberal combined, in opposition to the Conservatives, you will find that the Conservatives are in a distinct minority. The reason why they have their present unnatural majority is because they got in as the result of an electoral trick. They got in as the result of a panic created by the Zinovieff letter. I do not want to go into the details of that, but it swayed hundreds of thousands of votes and it was afterwards shown clearly to have been a forgery. It would be an outrage on the country if a Government so elected brought in such a Measure as has been proposed by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. It would be immensely resented by the people of this country, because it would be supposed that the Government were taking advantage of their two or three years term of office to erect barriers against the democracy of this country for the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) said he believed the people of this country are innately Conservative. I profoundly disagree with that statement in the sense in which he meant it. The people of this country want to work through their constitutional machinery. If they feel that this Government is taking advantage of a chance majority to erect barriers against their democratic desires in the future, they will turn to constitutional means to deal with them. They are not Conservative in the sense of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells. The Labour party is not officially committed at the present time to the policy of a Single Chamber. I am not sure from the Labour point of view that it would not be better to have a Second
Chamber properly elected and constituted. At any rate, I keep an open mind on that question, but if we are to have a reconstituted Second Chamber it can only be done safely—and I use the word "safely" advisedly—with the assent and assistance of those who sit on this side of the House.
A great deal of what hon. Members on the opposite side hold dearer than anything else—the survival of ancient pomps and ceremonies—are going to be swept away in the future. They may reserve a few years of tranquillity for themselves, but only a few years. If they will take a long view, they will agree with me that any change in the Constitution of the country can only be done with the assent of those who sit on these benches. If the Government want to act properly and squarely by the people of this country, they will try to get agreement on this subject and sit in conference with us. It is not sufficient for them to say, "We stand for the Second Chamber." There is a great deal mare in the matter than that. The House of Lords and the House of Commons and the whole Constitution do not matter so much as the desirability and the necessity of showing our people that they can do things, when they wish to see things done, by constitutional means and only by constitutional means. We must not weaken the belief of the mass of the people in constitutional methods and in the constitutional method of achieving their ends.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: There bas been a keynote in this Debate struck by the imagery of the hen. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), who drew a somewhat unconvincing picture of the more conscientious supporters of the kind of Government he would like to see in office, hesitating in their legislation on the receipt of postcards showered down upon them in shoals by an outraged people. I really think the picture was one entirely in his imagination, and the reflection of what would happen if the kind of Government he would like to see in power did actually occupy that position may well make us realise that it would not be by postcards that the people of this country would have their will put into operation. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) seemed more concerned, in moving his
Amendment, in displaying the reasons for the defeat of the Labour Government at the last General Election. He argued that we had no mandate for this proposal to reform and strengthen the House of Lords. For a democrat, I think he showed a singular lack of trust in the people. He complained that his party were placed at a great disadvantage He said the people to whom he appealed are easily diverted from sensible political thought and straightforward action by any catch-penny phrase in the Press, and though he conveniently forgot the great asset which the Labour party have in their possession in the involuntary support of a number of trade unionists who vote for the opposite side, yet he tried to make out that the people were very stupid persons and could he easily diverted at the last moment from what they really had in mind. He took the line that there was nothing that die people had given the mandate for in these proposals. First of all, the Preamble to the Parliament Act points out quite clearly that the Constitution was still left weak and needed reconstruction, and the country has ever since been in that curious position of having a debt of honour which, as the Prime Minister at the time explained, brooked no delay, unfulfilled and unredeemed. I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for West Denbigh (Mr. Davies) and his declaration in favour of a Second Chamber, out it would come better from Members of the Liberal party if, at the time they were in office and subsequently to that time, they had helped constitutionalists in making the Second Chamber real and effective and making the country safe for democracy.
May I deal with the question of the mandate? This mandate does not rely upon what was said in the Preamble in 1911. It was granted by the people of this country last May in their attitude towards the Constitution at the time of the general strike. At that time there was a direct challenge made to the Constitution. It was connived at by the Leaders of the Opposition. The people, on the other hand, rallied to strengthen and uphold the Constitution against the revolutionary element which tried to subvert it, and, in my view, it is the primary duty of the Government, shown by the
public in their remarkably united action at the time, to make this country safe for democracy by strengthening the Constitution. That must be done by an amendment of the Parliament Act which will make it very clear that an appeal to the country must precede the automatic passing of any Act which has been twice rejected in another place. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said that would mean that the position of the Labour Government would be intolerable if the House of Lords was strengthened and was entitled to do that. If this is opposed by hon. Members opposite the only reason can be that they intend to force Measures through the House without a mandate. That admission, made by the hon. Member for Keighley, and not welcomed and not liked by hon. Members who now interrupt me, is one that is fraught with very grave possibilities of danger to the country, and it is not for any party reason, but for the reason that I believe before grave changes take place the country should have a second opportunity of expressing its view that I support, without bothering at all as to what the personnel may he, something which is going to mean the strengthening and the making really effective of the powers of the Second Chamber which we have at present. I do not want to boggle over the question of the hereditary or the democratic element. There will be time enough when it comes to be discussed to deal with the details of the constitution of the Second Chamber. Then I shall be very glad, if the House will listen with the courtesy they have shown to-night, to express my views upon that subject. But, in the meantime, let me say this. If the Government fail to amend the Parliament Act and to make the Second Chamber effective, they will be betraying the mandate which was conferred on them at the time of the general strike, when the public rallied to the Constitution which it is their desire not to see overthrown but strengthened.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I should like in a very few words to bring the House back to the question before it. The House will observe that in the preamble of the Resolution which has been moved, the statement is:
To call attention to the powers and constitution of the House of Lords.
The hon. and learned Member who moved the Resolution quite properly put powers before constitution. That is really the question before us. Hon. Members opposite are interested not so much in the constitution of the House of Lords; what they are interested in is to get for the House of Lords certain powers. The powers that they want are not vested in a purely hereditary House, and in order to get the powers which they want, they are prepared to sacrifice the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for York (Sir S. Marriott) is one of those interesting people who is living under a great delusion. He is really under the impression that he is in favour of a Second Chamber. He is nothing of the kind. He is in favour of a Single Chamber when his party is in office, and two Chambers when the Opposition are in office.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Two Chambers under all circumstances.

Mr. MacDONALD: He is also under the delusion that the whole of the civilised world has had beneficial experience of a Second Chamber.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Hear, hear!

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not so. It is a good long time since I read his book on the Second Chamber. It happened to be my fate to have it in my hands before most people had it, in order that I might either give him a puff or otherwise, and I have not had occasion to refer to it since those days. If my recollection serves me aright, the hon. Member in that book did what everybody who has seriously considered the question of the Second Chamber has done; he discovered, as we have all discovered on going into this question, that there is no case where a Second Chamber has been effective against the First Chamber, but there has been friction, and that only when Second Chambers either have no power worth speaking of, or happen to be, of precisely the same political colour as the Lower Chamber, have Second Chambers been attended with a reasonable amount of peaceful legislation and co-operation. The hon. Member knows that perfectly well.
Take our own Dominions. The Second Chambers in our Dominions are elected
in a variety of ways; in Canada in one way, in the Commonwealth of Australia in another way, in the States of Australia in another way, and in others in different ways. That variety of election gives a difference of character to the persons elected. The hon. Member for York knows perfectly well that His Majesty's representatives in our Dominions have had no greater problem placed before them, and have got into no more unfortunate situations than in trying to unravel the tangle that again and again has been created on account of the existence of Second Chambers. I remember, years ago, when I happened to be wandering about in Queensland, going into Brisbane in the middle of a tremendous fight between the then Governor-General and the Government of Mr. Kidson—the Government of the day. I happened to be in the place when that most unfortunate and deplorable friction was solved. I remember perfectly well how bitter was the memory left behind, and how damaging to Queensland politics at the time that friction was. There is no case—I do not know of any—where you get an effective Second Chamber, the sort of Second Chamber that is in the minds of hon. Members opposite. and that Chamber works well with a lower Chamber elected directly from the people, as is this House. That is the experience of the civilised world and by that experience we stand.
You can put up a case—and I think a very good case can be put up, although I do not agree with it—for a Second Chamber of certain limited powers. I have always held, and hold very strongly still, that a Chamber with nothing more than a power of revision of legislation might be a very economical part of a country's constitution, but a Chamber that acts upon political principle—certainly not! If the burden on the minds of hon. Members about the constitutional position really is a constitutional burden and not a party burden, it is very curious that no attempt has ever been made to take this question outside the realm of party politics. Hon. Members have never tried to get this matter settled by the House of Commons. They want only to get it settled by the Tory party. The committee that has been working at this has been a Tory party committee. The powers that have been moving behind
the Throne have been Tory party powers. The deputations that have gone to the Prime Minister have been Tory party deputations. The Resolutions that have been carried from time to time, ever since 1922, have been Resolutions carried by the Tory party. There never has been a single argument developed by anyone in favour of a change, but before it was finished has become a Tory party argument and a Tory party argument only. What is wanted is that we should have a constitutional change at the present time in the interests of the Tory party, and effected in this House by a Tory party majority.
Do hon. Members think that the country is going to accept the professions that have been expressed to-day by these clear, good, impartial constitutionalists, a body that has never been conspicuous for its support of the Constitution? As an hon. Member has shown, the connection between the Tory party and the Constitution began after the general strike. I regret very much to say that I am a little older than the hon. Member who has just spoken. I regret it most profoundly. When I was nearer the very happy stage of life of the hon. Member, I sat where the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) is now sitting. I remember perfectly well those days, when the Tory party was not a constitutional party. I remember very well when the Tory party was doing its best to create armed rebellion in Ireland, when we were told that the decision of the people was as nothing, and that the majority vote in this House was not worth the paper on which it was to be printed next day.
Hon. Members should speak with a little more care about the Tory party's devotion to the Constitution when it does not suit its own partisan purposes. What we find to-day is this. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) brought a deputation to the Prime Minister and informed the Prime Minister that they could not make up their minds whether the hereditary principle was going to last or not. I believe I have the figures he quoted. He said that 33 were against the hereditary element and 25 were for it. Then he went on to explain why the
matter was urgent. It was urgent, not because they were opposed to the other place and the constitution of the other place as it is now. No, they were concerned with the constitution of the other place at the present time, because they wanted the other place endowed with more power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Exactly. They want more power to protect the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Really I cannot believe it.

Sir R. SANDERS: To protect the country against you.

Mr. MacDONALD: I was perfectly certain of that. I was not going to say it in such a nice trite way as that in which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to express himself, but that is it. It is to protect the country against us. It is to protect the country against their political opponents. Therefore, if I were sitting on the other side of the House, and if I wanted to change the Constitution for some reason, then, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells, I should be perfectly entitled to force by a majority which might happen to be behind me a constitutional change of the most vital and important character for no other reason than that I wanted to protect myself against the Tories. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was speaking for himself!"] He was speaking for the party. Therefore, to put it in a way that is perfectly plain, the Tory party want to remain in power after it has been kicked out of office. Really, the country knows quite as well as the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends what is good for it. He and his Friends are beginning to see the end of their tether and, lice wise men, they are considering how they can put their estate under trustees who are trustworthy. But they are making the mistake of imagining that their party estate is the nation's estate. I deny that. It is nothing of the kind. Moreover they make this mistake. They assume that in a very special way they are the impartial arbitrators of national destiny, and that if they got a second chamber to suit them, then that second chamber would suit the country. I quite admit that with all the historical power which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have had it is very difficult for them to see that times have changed. But, whether they like
it or not, they have to admit that those on this side of the House, those who represent Labour and who represent Socialism, have just as genuine a concern for maintaining this country healthy, strong and powerful as they themselves have, and the legislation against which they desire to protect the country is only objectionable to them because it does not come from themselves. That is the only position that one can take. The idea is this, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells said, in that wonderful, that precious interview with the Prime Minister:
What was more possible than that without a majority in the country they"—
that is the Socialists—
might have as the Conservatives have now a considerable majority in the House of Commons.
There is no use talking about the figures, because the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he and his Government represent, not a majority in the country, but a minority of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted it, and the Prime Minister was wise enough not to contradict it. That being so, the position that hon. Members opposite are in is this: They see the end of their tether. They are afraid of what is going to happen. They have got a very shrewd idea that after the General Election is going to come the judgment, and that they are not going to come out of that judgment very well, and that they are going to find themselves on this side of the House, whoever may sit on that side. Therefore, like a wise and far-seeing Tory, the right hon. Gentleman made a plot to interview the Prime Minister, and he said: Unless you take precautions to gerrymander the Constitution in the interests of our party, you are going to have democracy working in this country, and, therefore, although we are in a minority—and that is where my mandate comes in. I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for York in the matter of mandates, and I think the right hon. Gentleman from Wells rather admits two sanctions for mandates. One is that a Government may have power to do a thing, but it has got no right to do it, and the two are not at all the same thing.
I say that the Government, whatever its majority in this House may be, has got obligations really to do the right
thing and to restrain itself from doing wrong things if it cannot justify the wrong for reasons above merely party considerations. That is especially strong, and I put it in as a plea. In those days when I sat where the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth sits, I warned the Tory party then that the time might come when their unconstitutional advice and action might be brought up against them, that there were such things as chickens coming home to roost. I warn them now. They should not set an example in changing Constitutions, things they hold in such reverence. They should not change Constitutions by a party vote in this House, more particularly when, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, the party majority in this House does not represent a majority in the country. You can force this through, I know. You have got your 200 majority, slowly wasting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Very slowly."] Hon. Members have themselves taken precautions that it should not waste more quickly by, for instance, making it unnecessary for newly appointed Ministers to go to their constituencies. I can assure hon. Members, both above and below the Gangway, that if they wish to hasten the wasting process, I will back them up, and I will vote with them upon that. As quickly as you can, hasten the wasting process, but in the meantime may I beg a good old-fashioned Tory Government to put its purely partisan interests on one side, and to remember that by tampering with this machinery, which is not always rational, which is very often what we call a myth, they do untold harm, untold damage; and at any rate tampering never ought to be undertaken in political circumstances such as those in which we now are.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have never wondered why the right hon. Gentleman is the Leader of the party opposite. He is head and shoulders above them all in Debate. I wondered really during the earlier speeches what the ease was against this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman put it on a much higher plane. He has appealed to us not to use our party majority in this House to alter the constitution of this country, but I think he has altogether forgotten what is proposed
by this Motion. In 1911 the Parliament Act was passed, and part and parcel of that Act was an obligation of the House of Commons to deal with the constitution of the House of Lords. The Preamble says:
And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords, as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.
It went on to say:
And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a Measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber.
That is an obligation which, I well remember, the present Lord Oxford said some years ago brooked no delay. A good many things have happened since 1911. I do not say it was possible for the Liberal party to take into consideration an amendment of the powers and constitution of the House of Lords during the Great War, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had time to consider the obligation which the Parliament of 1911 has put upon future representatives in the House of Commons. Therefore, I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has gone a little too far in accusing us of mala fides in bringing forward a Bill to carry out those terms in this proposed Resolution. I quite agree that a great change in the constitution of the House of Lords, such as is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), is not worth while making unless the powers of the House of Lords are altered. I frankly say that. In fact, for the present purpose, the House of Lords is a very much more popular body than hon. Members opposite seem to think. We were told by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) that the House of Lords would disappear. I do not believe it will disappear. I believe if hon. Members opposite agreed to consolidate their thunder at the next General Election upon the House of Lords—but I agree they will not do it. They know quite well that cock would not fight. They think they have something up their sleeve which is far better—something that will appeal to the cupidity of mankind. [An HON. MEMBER: "You ought to know about cupidity!"] I
admit I know the meaning of the word. That being the case, the Government view is this, if any alteration is to be made in the constitution of the House of Lords the powers of the House of Lords must be altered. To-day the House of Lords practically has no power at all.
I entirely agree with the views which were put forward by an hon. and learned Member that we are living under a uni-cameral Constitution at the present time. We are the only civilised country which has only one Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman complained that in many of our Dominions the two Chambers did not work well together. I will take it from him that that is correct, but what should be the corollary of his statement? Surely it is that those Dominions should have got rid of their Second Chambers. As far as I know, there is not one single Dominion, there is not one single country, neither France nor the United States of America, which is proposing to get rid of its Second Chamber. There may be difficulties; there are difficulties between the First and Second Chamber in this country, but the mere fact that there are difficulties in working between one Second Chamber and another is not a conclusive, or, indeed, any argument for doing away with the Second Chamber altogether, and those great democratic countries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have not proposed to do away with their Second Chambers. Why should he say to us, "Because there were difficulties in the year 19 and something"—I forget the date—"in Queensland between the First and Second Chambers, therefore there should be no Second Chamber at all in Great Brita-n, or merely an ineffective Second Chamber"?
I do share to the full the fears of some of my hon. Friends, which have been so frankly expressed, lest there should be at any time in this House a majority which could carry through and, the Second Chamber being ineffective, could pass into law, Acts of Parliament which did not really carry with them the full support of the country. The right hon. Gentleman told us that such a time may arise in the history of Parliament. He told us to-day that if by our majority' in this House we pass a Measure giving more powers to the House of Lords, we shall be doing it against the views of the people of this country. Let me
assume that for a moment. He has implored us not to do it, not to use our powers, saying it would not be fair to use our powers to pass a Measure into law when we know that it is not in accordance with the views of the people of this country. If the Lords have no power, and if they are to be kept in a state of subjection, is it not equally possible—I hardly like to make such a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman as he has made to us—is it not equally possible that he might be some day tempted, after two years of government and with a large majority in this House, to pass something into law of which we on this side of the House would say, "You had no authority from the people of this country to do it."

Mr. MacDONALD: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to lead me into temptation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will try not to do so. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but even he might be tempted--or pushed by his followers. [An HON. MEMBER: "As you are!"] What are the proposals that have been made? There are great difficulties before the Government, even assuming for the moment that the Government desired to bring in such a Measure as suggested. We are very glad to have had this Debates we are very glad to have had the views of some of our colleagues, we are very glad to have had the views of the party conferences on which the right hon. Gentleman animadverted just now. Why should we not have those conferences? I am sure he has had more than enough of party conferences from time to time. The only difference is that ours generally support their leaders.
I say frankly to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that there is no possibility of introducing a Measure for the reform of the House of Lords unless there is one of two positions; either a definite agreement, certainly among our own supporters, as to the conditions that reform should take, or a definite realisation that the proposals put forward by the Government after the very gravest care, consideration and inquiry and is one which those hon. Friends of ours would support. May I say, quite frankly, you cannot restore anything like full power to the House of Lords unless, as before
1911, you have electoral reform. That, I think, was admitted by the deputation referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There must be an alteration in the Constitution and the law. The hereditary principle must in some part, go. There must be an elective principle introduced. Some suggest that should be by direct election by large constituencies; some suggest by indirect election by county councils or parish councils. There should be a nominated element. Someone suggested to-day there should be 50 Members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. It struck me as a somewhat weird proposal.
Then there is this—and this is the real crux—that the real final balance of power in a democratic country like this must remain with the Lower House which is representative of the people of this country. Provision will have to be made, too, in some way or another to keep the balance between the two Houses. Some suggest joint sittings, some suggestions have been made of conferences; others suggest that there should be power in the Second Chamber for either a Referendum or an appeal to the people. I say to my friends on behalf of the Government all these considerations are before the Cabinet. The Cabinet Committee has been sitting for some months. We have seen as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) knows, him and his friends. We have seen Members of the other House, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) had asked we would like to see him too. We did not send for the hon. Member for Wells. He asked to be allowed to come and said he had something to contribute to the general debate. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon has anything useful to contribute we will be glad to see him. If he has any real proposals to make for the improvement of the House of Lords we shall be very glad to hear what he has to propose. What course does the Government propose to take? With regard to the official programme of the Tory party it is ridiculous to say that this subject was not mentioned at the Election. Speaking at Perth in the middle of the General Election the Prime Minister in October, 1924, used these words:
It is our duty to consider within the framework of the Parliament Act whether
it is practicable to make provision for improving the machinery of the Second Chamber, and for preserving the ultimate authority in legislation to the considered judgment of the people.
This was subject to the predominant power remaining with the people of this country. That is as far as the Government has got or has tried to go. The Government is considering proposals at the present time. So far as this Debate is concerned I am authorised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to say that so far as the Government are concerned we do not desire to take part in any division, although we welcome the speeches which I am sure will guide us. I am not quite so certain that the speches made by hon. Members opposite will afford us equal guidance, but those speeches made by hon. Members on this side of the House will be most carefully considered by the Prime Minister, and by the Government, and the Prime Minister and the Government fully intend to carry out the pledges given to the people, and they are fully sensitive of the gravity of the position, and desire to see what can be done to restore to the other Chamber some of those powers of which they were deprived by the House of Commons in 1911 and which Parliament then declared must he taken into consideration.

Captain BOURNE: I do not agree either with the Resolution or the Amendment, but I should like to refer to one remark which was made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). He referred to the pride, Mr. Speaker, of your predecessor in the Chair—

HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!" and Interruption.

Mr. LEES-SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.

Ordered, That the Committer do consist of Seventeen Members.

Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Compton, Sir Walter de Frece, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Mr. Dunnico, Sir Park Goff, Mr. George Harvey, Major Sir George Hennessy, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Kenneth Murchison, Sir Herbert Nield, Mrs. Philipson, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, and Miss Wilkinson nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Major Cape.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly, at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.